Agree with taamvan’s approach and thinking.  I only have had time to play limited table top versions with my group, but have come to the conclusion with the KJF strategy for the U.S. for the allies to hope to win.  But I don’t go 100% Pacific.  I bleed off destroyers as needed to sweep subs in the Atlantic for Brits so they can concentrate on land/air builds in mid-east to support Russia or India (i.e., YG’s middle earth), and a sub or two each round for the Med to convoy and take out any surface ships protecting transports if Axis goes that route.  If not, to eventually pile those in SZ97 and convoy Italy.

Pressure on Japan has to be applied simultaneously from all directions as they have such a large perimeter to protect (not the case for Germany).  If not, then they can rotate the air force (and fleet) in sectors to clean up, then move on after secured.  First focus on China then to take India and eliminate UK Pac.  Once those are secured along with spice, they are earning 80+ with NO’s, and the force can then pivot back to go east or SE.  By the time U.S. pivots back in later rounds to Pacific after helping to bottle up Germany, Japan is too massive.

By U.S. applying pressure early with fleet/air builds, along with minors (ANZAC, UK PAC, Russia, China), Japan is forced to either split their concentrated force, or be exposed in one of the sectors.  That includes keeping Russian force in full in waiting at Buryatia, to pin Japan land forces there or allow Russians to advance to Manchuria.  Also, much of the Japan income is open to convoy, so lots of subs to be built between U.S. and ANZAC.  If Japan counters with destroyer builds, that helps mainland Allied forces.  And if China is able to build artillery with regularity, say goodbye to China for Japan and its income loss.

Also, initial fleet builds are in Atlantic as contingency against Sea Lion.  But after R2 (maybe R3 depending), then move fleet through Panama over to Pac once Sea Lion threat is past.  Yes, Germany will probably take down Russia with no pressure in W. Eur.  Then the race is Egypt.  By then, Japan should be contained to a level where U.S. can go 100% Eur.

Knowing focus is Pac for U.S., I concentrate any bids to Eur, save one Inf for ANZAC for DNG NO.  If bid is sufficient, to pull off both Taranto and Tobruk to allow Brits to secure Africa and relegate Italy to be nothing more than Eur mainland can openers.  Brits can then focus on mid-east builds while completing Africa cleanup and securing that income.

You can make that a 4th.  Just started learning G40 a few months back, and played 2 pseudo games tabletop with my local group as a dry run to get familiar with the new rule set, map, and, units.  But have been playing Revised a couple of years since it came out.  Stumbled across it at a hobby store in Toronto while on a business trip back in 2006.  I had last played A&A back in the mid 80’s when in the Navy and stationed in Wash DC when someone in our group had it and introduced several of us to it.  Played a few times, then got away from it after getting out of the service, moving, starting a new job, family, etc.  When I got Revised, didn’t realize a new version came out.  After opening up, and seeing it looked different, read up on it and realized it was a new version.  Liked Revised much more than what I remembered of Classic.  Introduced a couple of co workers to it, and one of their sons, and have played Revised only tabletop over the years. Only have time to get together 2-3 times a year with my group and complete a full game.  One of the group asked if a different version was out there, and I showed them all about G40.  He wanted to go for it, since it sounded a lot more involved and a chance to get more players in too.  So I’ve been boning up on G40 as well as reading on the Forum, and like what it has to offer, but don’t like how it is so skewed towards the Axis.  For Revised, it is skewed towards the Allies, but not to the degree that G40 is towards the Axis.  We’ve never played bids on Revised, and would arrange teams in a way to put the weakest on Allies to even out our playing field.  For G40, when you have experienced players, see no way but to go with a bid for the Allies or they get crushed.  Would like to start playing on line or AAA sometime, but personal time is limited and wouldn’t want an opponent waiting weeks for my next move.  Something that will be possible when I retire, a few years from that unfortunately.

@WILD:

Nice post Skip, and welcome to AA.org. I like to read game reports like this, especially from players just getting started with G40. I assume that you have purchased the G40 2nd edition that has the latest rule set. I just wanted to point out that the USA can’t upgrade the Southern French IC to a major, and for example they couldn’t build a major on Norway either. The only territory any power can build a major IC on is their own original territories (not islands) worth 3 IPCs or more that have their flag printed on it. So it would also be illegal for Japan to build a major IC on Manchuria because it is an original Chinese territory (although Japan starts the game with it). Japan could however build a major on Korea if they wanted too.

Good gameing

Thank you WB, I should have known better.  You are correct I have G40 2nd edition, as this was a recent purchase.  I remember reading this point in an earlier thread when I first got the game and getting familiar with this rule set compared to Revised while looking at various Forum topics.  My Allies opponents asked the question of completing the upgrade knowing you need to be at least a 3 IPC for a major, not clicking that this also has to be an original territory.  I tried to talk them out of that anyways in the 20 IPCs would be better spent for 1 D and 2 SS for Pacific as Japan monster was growing and their U.S. transport conveyor to Europe was securely established.  They could still safely shuck 8 units across the pond + 3 build in Southern France, and use remaining spend for Pacific build that needed to start.  They wanted to shift the transports over to Pacific, of which I said it would be too late and of no benefit.  By the time they got there, they conceded realizing Japan could not be stopped from eventually taking Hawaii, even if U.S., shifted all its spend over at that time to Pacific since Japan income was already in the 80’s and it’s fleet/air already outnumbered U.S. in theater.

1st post to the forum.  1st introduced to A&A shortly after it came out in mid 80’s.  This from someone else in the Navy I worked with when stationed in Wash DC at the time who had the game.  That along with Fortress America.  Introduced to wargaming from my dad back in the 70’s with the various Avalon Hill and SPI games: Battle of the Bulge and A Bridge Too Far are my favorites, which I still have with all the pieces to this day.  Midway (Japanese player won every time in my experience), Panzer Blitz and Squad Leader.  Got away from A&A after getting out of the service, and not meeting anybody willing to wargame, along of the reality of work and family which dominates my time.  Came across Revised at a hobby store while on a business trip in Toronto in mid 2000’s, and purchased my own.  At the time, did not know that it even existed.  Was able to find a couple of co-workers to play, but their skill level not as advanced, as they did not spend as much time studying the map and determining strategies when not playing.  That version definitely stacked for the Allies, but I was able to beat my opponents as Axis as well.  With each game I am teaching them strategies, and lessons learned, as I want them to get to the same skill level for a challenging match.  A few months back, one of my opponents asked if there were any other A&A versions, as the games were starting to get somewhat routine, typical KGF and U.S. land bridge to Europe.  I knew of 1940 and after researching, my one opponent agreed to get Eur and Pac.  He figure’d too with all of us learning at the same time, that I would have less of an advantage when we started playing.  But guess who has been doing their research on the forum sites and watching youtube videos, and who hasn’t?  Naturally the ones from GHG and YGH, along with several others.  Also reading some of the battle reports of some games, quite impressive play.

We had our first run a couple months back, where I played Axis and they played Allies.  We each took our respective turns, but collectively helped the other side out to determine a logical counter.  We agreed to go with a G1/J1 DOW to get the action going, and Allies KGF strategy.  Only U.S. income in Pacific was 2 Inf stack per turn for Hawaii transport, thus leaving ANZAC and UKP to buy Inf and turtle.  The thing I already observed is that even then, Germany still was steamrolling Russia about to take Moscow even though they were the primary Allies focus.  I misplayed Germany/Italy, and realized what I needed to do next time to advance faster and with greater force, so the fall of Moscow was just short.  U.S. got a foothold in southern France and upgraded to a major, and UKE up through Greece as I had Italy stacked big time, no amphib landing there.  But Germany still had IPC’s in the 50’s, and would still be a few rounds before they would start collapsing.  But Japan was a monster by then, having upwards of 80 IPCs with their air force intact.  After securing China, finally having India fall (UKE employed GHG’s Middle Earth strategy to delay fall, but 3 MIC’s on mainland and air force eventually overpowered), and invading Russia.  They were now ready to massively expand the fleet and take Hawaii.  U.S. still had to commit half of income to Eur along with UKE to put the squeeze on Germany, but Japan could commit all of its income to the fleet and Hawaii now that the mainland was secured.  Sure Hawaii had its stack of 20+ Inf/Art, but the U.S. fleet was about to get wiped, then a matter of just building transports and land units to complete the amphib.  That would only take 2 rounds with Japan income.

So we then played our next game a couple weeks back, I let my opponents take Axis and I played Allies (along with son of one of my opponents, who was more preoccupied playing games on his startphone in between turns than learning A&A strategies).  Because of skill level difference, no need for bid.  So this gets to the post on this string, and PainState’s Realities.  Namely on points #2 and #3 (I am probably repeating past points made on other string posts too, as they are numerous).  ANZAC is key, which is why I love 1940 over Revised.  This is to get ANZAC to be more than building its stack for South Aust., being relegated to only 10 IPC’s.  As for Japan, all their starting income is susceptible to convoy save 1 (Iwo).  Not the case for Germany, save Norway and if they pick up Norm/S. France/Yugo.  Further, all Japan island money gains can be convoyed.  Only money areas spared are inland China (12), Shan State/Burma (2), and if Japan elects to go into Russia.  Key is to get fleet force built up fast for U.S. and ANZAC., coupled with mecs from UKE Mid East MIC for India stack.  While Japan force is sizeable (especially planes), it can’t be at all places at the same time.  I liken it to a pack of hyenas attacking the lion simultaneously.  And those hyenas are primarily subs, which is something ANZAC can afford with its limited income, and the U.S. can buy stacks.  You can’t build up enough air assets fast enough to match Japan’s before Germany becomes too overwhelming.  You can’t take out Japan’s air force, you just need to take out its ships.  You can get 6 subs attacking @ 2 for the same as a carrier and 2 planes attacking 1 @ 3 and 1 @ 4.  Once Japn’s ships are taken out, flood all the convoy zones with subs to squeeze Japan’s income.  The massive Japanese air force is impotent without destroyers, of which ANZAC/U.S. can be build more subs than Japan destroyers.

I figure regardless of KGF or KJF, Moscow is going down.  Thats the reality I see, it’s a matter of time.  Either Germany or Japan will have an eventual income in the 80’s, depending on which one gets the Allies focus and the other gets free reign.  The one getting focus will naturally have something less, which to me can be reduced more with KJF (Japan getting squeezed into the teens with convoys), vs KGF (with Germany still being in the 40’s to 50’s, depending on its eventual state of decline).  Once Japan income is squashed, ANZAC has DEI and NO earning 26+, and China is partially restored, then Pacific can be handed over to ANZAC/China to mop up while US/UK (E & P) dedicate 100% spend to Germany.  Question is whether Germany force is too large by then to stop in time before getting Cairo.

My strategy worked successfully against my opponents, but as noted before their skill level is nowhere near to those in these forums.  Once the U.S. sunk the bulk of Japan’s surface fleet in SZ6, and ANZAC flooded the zones with their sub build, my opponents conceded.  Russia was about to fall, but I was aggressive and strafed the German stacks on the way to Moscow.  With GHG’s Middle Earth strategy with 2 MIC’s, and UKP could now divert its forces west, Germany would not be able to overcome.  So I’m sure those that post all have developed counters to this, and elements I need to consider.  Unfortunately, my time is limited, as I would love to play a lot more, especially on Triple A.  Will be able to so once I retire, not too many years away though.  I do like playing table top version though on wargames, as this brings the element of making on the spot decisions, just like in actual war.  So mistakes are made, opportunities are missed.  Comes with the territory of having to make so many decisions in a short amount of time.