@Hobbes:

My thread is being hijacked by Jar Jar Binks!

Quick, get the lightsaber!  :-P

Or I may try a different pitch - imagine you’re the EVIL Soviet Empire from the top of your Death Star in Caucasus, all bend in galactic conquest and domination. Meanwhile those pesky rebels are massing their forces in India - your Emperor has commanded you to crush the malicious Jedi army led by Jar Jar Binks. while he’s battling Yoda on West Russia.

So you’re actually saying Adolf H. would be Yoda? But he has no mustache…

Anyway, I can’t explain it with frying pan logic like Bunnies but I agree that Soviet India Crush is more of a tactical possibility than any kind of strategic consideration. The usual tank path for Russia on the Asia front is Yakut-Sinkiang-Persia. From any of these territories they can come back to Moscow in one move if things get scary. Going to India means Germany and Japan get 2 turns to advance before the tanks are back for defense. If that allows Germany for example to take West Russia and reinforce with fighers, that’s probably more costly than UK getting 3 extra income and Japan 3 less and one turn of IC shutdown. So while the situation might come up, it is in no need any argument for Russia to buy many tanks (even if there are good other reasons).

I have tried KJF with some succes. How I play it is that I never decide to go KJF until J1 has passed. That means I will usually not devote any Russian or British forces to fight Japan in the first round. Instead I will focus on the European theater and Africa first, building a UK navy and trying to sink the Med Fleet ASAP. The reasoning is that even with a KJF, you can’t let Germany just run rampant. KJF often means a long game, so keeping the African IPCs out of German hands is very important. With UK that will always be my number one priority, so it’s safe to say that I will never build an Indian IC on UK1. Of course, the Japanese transport will still be sunk in 99% of the games.

For me, the most important KJF triggers happen on J1 and can be summarized as Japan failing to take a critical objective (China, Pearl) or losing a lot of air and naval forces across multiple battles. If Japan does ‘big Pearl’ and takes heavy losses, exposing a battleship and carrier to a promising US counterattack, I will often go KJF. Same goes for ‘small Pearl’ and losing that battle. For losing China it’s a bit less clear-cut, since Allies often don’t have the units in that area to press on an advantage. In other occasions Japan could lose a BB in SZ59, or fighters in any battle, giving enough incentive for US to build a Pacific fleet.

After round 1, even if US went Pacific, I will mostly use UK to fight Germany and assist in the defense of Russia.

The sad thing about this form of KJF is that it is contingent on bad dice for Axis, and not used as a general strategy. The question is whether in those scenarios where Japan has bad dice, KJF might be viable but KGF could still be strictly better.

@_Flin_:

@MrMalachiCrunch:

I think we just need to play against some new blood so we can be schooled, embarrassed, curse the dice then finally accept we were missing something.

Read the article on Fortress Europe, review what few play by forum games remain, its a pity old legacy games and posts have been removed but there remains a few.

Yes, I noticed the part about 1942 games, few there, too bad.

I read the fortress Europe article and got quite inspired by it, reading up on it on this board in seperate threads. I used the superior placing of the Luftwaffe in France (british fleet sunk in the process due to my opponent somehow not noticing that I have 2 subs as cannon fodder). Played defensively and most was well (except for a stupid mistake as response to an R2 sub buy in the Black Sea). Too bad Japan self-destroyed on 4th/5th turn. I look forward to play more matches as Germany. I am not the only one, though. Everyone in our group wants to play Germany, and everyone is keen on trying their own special tech, no matter how loud I cringe :-)

Maybe try a 1 vs 1 game where you can be both Japan and Germany? Sounds like every Axis loss could be attributed to your friends wrecking your plans  :-(

This thread has moved away from discussing the UK1 factory, however, I’ll just add to the discussion on UK1 strategy.

I totally agree with Zhukov that Egypt is the most important target. However, depending on the remaining forces there are a lot of different options how to do it. Only if there are 4 (or more, with a bid) German units left I will not attack Egypt. If there are 3 Germans, I’d like to send everything possible, including the bomber and the cruiser support shot, sending the carrier to get the Jap transport and intending to land the planes in Ethiopia. Depending on German air presence and Russian unit allocation you may also be able to land in Trans-Jordan. Odds: about 71% to take with at least 1 inf, 19% to clear all land units and 10% to lose one or more air units. It is actually debatable whether you should press the attack with 1 fighter and 1 bomber versus 1 armor; you may lose the fighter but this will pay back by keeping Africa clear. On the other hand you may not be able to sink the German fleet next turn without the extra fig.

With 2 armor left you can consider using the bomber and/or cruiser for other purposes. 3 inf 1 fig versus 2 armor lets you take Egypt 68%, clears land units another 17% of the time and loses the fighter 15%. However these numbers also include the times when you continue with 1 fig against 1 arm and win, which you probably shouldn’t do, so you will sometimes retreat with 1 or even 2 armors left (and cry). Sending the bomber or the cruiser too makes it much better of course. By the way, I consider clearing all land units a good outcome, since it is really just about killing the German tanks. Taking Egypt is just a nice bonus that will prevent air units to land there.

With 1 armor left, you have options! Sending just the TJ inf and the fighter (possibly also the bomber) allows you to save the transport for future turns, but you need to send a ship against the Jap transport (likely the cruiser). You could also choose to send 3 inf and the cruiser against Egypt, allowing the fighter to take out the Jap tranny and to land in Buryatia (an advantage not to underestimate). I would love to send just 1 inf and bomber against Egypt, the fighter against the transport and preserve the entire Indian fleet, but this leaves no good landing spot for the bomber unless you positioned the Russians to assist in Trans Jordan.

Finally, the Aussie fleet moves depending on the Indian fleet. If the Indian fleet exposed itself to Japanese attacks, for example cruiser to SZ59 and transport to Egy SZ, you can be more liberal with the Aussia transport since it is less likely to get hit (and if it will, other battles will become less favorable for Japan). The sub can move freely but should always be positioned within 2 spaces of either Japan seazone or FIC seazone, threating the one the UK bomber can’t reach, so between the two of them you can take out any loose transports Japan leaves after J1 (or more likely, forces him to protect them).

UK. They have so many options and not many units, forcing difficult decisions and careful planning. You have to be creative and versatile with air and naval units, and cooperate with both Russia and USA to maintain control of important territories and sea zones. I love it!

In all seriousness, the names are useful when you’re typing up a strategy post and need short references like NG. Ukraine Opening will do just as fine, if it sticks (but still less cool than Norwegian Gambit).

By the way, is there a short and sexy name for the R1 Ukraine attack? Norway Gambit sounds sweet, but “Standard R1 Ukraine attack” is kinda dull… Ukraine Bash, Ukraine Crush, Ukraine Beats?

@Hobbes:

@El:

Hobbes, I agree with everything you said. However, if 1) the 2nd fighter is so important, 2) you usually buy extra armor with Russia, and 3) Norway Gambit saves extra armor for Russia; then it’s just as easy to replace the 2nd fighter as to replace the 2 armor, right?

Yes, yes and yes.

But with the Gambit now G also has an extra art+arm on Ukraine, most likely can stack Ukraine and force Russia to keep its armor stack on Caucasus on turn 2 and abandon West Russia. What do you prefer?

The real answer is I don’t know. I play on GameTable Online and have tried both openings, but have yet to encounter a good aggressive German answer to Norway Gambit. More testing seems necessary, maybe also in Low Luck. At least the game between you and Granada looks very interesting for both sides.

Hobbes, I agree with everything you said. However, if 1) the 2nd fighter is so important, 2) you usually buy extra armor with Russia, and 3) Norway Gambit saves extra armor for Russia; then it’s just as easy to replace the 2nd fighter as to replace the 2 armor, right?

I think the fig/2 tnk comparison is unnecessary to properly evaluate the Gambit. Given reasonable dice, Russia loses a fighter in Kar on G1, but also preserves 2 extra tanks in WR compared to the WR+Ukraine attack. So Russia can just buy 2 tanks after attacking Ukr or 1 fighter after attacking Norway and end up with roughly the same forces.

IMO, the real problems with the Gambit are 1) increased probability of losing WR on G1; and 2) Ger being able to stack Ukraine and gain an important positional advantage (as pointed out by Hobbes). I think those elements have to be weighed against the extra UK BB, instead of the oversimplification of Russian fig vs UK BB.