Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
I believe it. I don't pay attention most of the time. I don't use calculators most of the time and on the rare occasion I even bother, I NEVER calculate the counters.
Last game I blundered with Russia - I believe it was something like based on chat I didn't think my opponent had the balls to push Caucasus so I put up a bad defense there. But my opponent DID have balls. Yeah that was pretty funny. Especially when I ran the calculator afterwards.
Yeah, I got a wee bit of bad dice, but it really comes down to I got greedy and stupid and lazy. Eh.
Oh wait, no. Was that the game with the multiplayer? And I was like yeah okay let's figure out the plan, and you chaps were like KJF and I was like okay so let's do this and this and I did the Russia turn and UK went YOLO and I was like "eff this" and quit? Yeah that was pretty funny. If you have the Discord chat, you can publish the whole thing for all I care. Except wasn't that the one where I was like yeah let's have an open conversation about the game at *least* afterwards and my teammates were like oh no, we have some extra special sauce (which didn't happen but whatever) or was that the opponents. Whatever.
==
Jan and Boston - hm. I've crossed BostonNWO before. We're mutually unimpressed. He goes on about his rank, I go on about how I don't care and if he wants to give tips he needs to be less vague, then he says fight me, and I'm like can you keep it in your pants and he's like at least I have pants. Not those words exactly but you get the idea.
Jan I don't remember offhand.
Other blundered games I've done - I played with Julius Borosov or some developers maybe, and I got super careless with Japan. And I could say I was rusty (which I was), or about the UI, but the fact is, leaving - was it three undefended transports off Japan? I looked for but didn't see a bomber in range for whatever reason, then I started my turn after logging in and I was like "where's my transports". Yeah that was funny.
==
I deranked from platinum to wood so I could get the wood league badge in Discord (before I quit it for toxicity) - to show exactly how little regard I have for the rank implementation. And that was *before* rank degradation.
Far as lightening up - there's the cheap kinda conversation where everyone's talking about rank and there isn't really any talk about what's seriously happening in game. It's light conversation,. "Lightening up" is a good term for it.
Then there's me where I'm like "what do you mean exactly"? Well they made Socrates drink poison for doing much the same, so I suppose I'm getting off easy.
But really. If we're going to say Japan goes *pure subs* you gotta understand. That's totally counter to doctrine as I understand it. So yeah, I'm going to ask questions. Because MAYBE - JUST MAYBE I'm going to find something that changes my understanding of doctrine.
Even if I can't get that from what someone writes - maybe there IS something to it even if they can't explain it. But if I don't get that understanding from what's described, I'm going to call it like I see it.
I read all that and it makes for a great argument, some of it is kinda funny. But, we are still left with you are not playing Quinton, Cow, Jan or anyone in the top 100. I know I am an AVG. player at the moment, but I want to hear from the best players, not the best writers. You are a great poster and you can write, but you tearing up advise from acomplished players is hollow. Start playing, show us you can climb the later. Than your advise would mean more to other players.
First off, I'd like to paraphrase what I see so many smart players here are really sharing about a KJF strategy: The Axis are more likely to win if Germany takes Russia and Japan is stymied than if the Allies take Germany out before or the same turn that Japan take Russia. IOW it is more probable for the Axis to win 2v2 (after USSR falls) than Japan winning 1v2 allies (after Germany and USSR fall.)
Therefore, it is in the Axis' favor if the Allies go KJF.
[Disclaimer: I'm not going to pretend I haven't played a brilliant game for ten rounds only to make a colossal blunder and lose a turn later.]
For sure, there have to be certain circumstances for a KJF to even be tried in the first place. But with Japan's position on the map it's more Japan's game to lose in the Pacific.
Let's look at a few quick premises:
1. Your primary job with Japan is to get as many land pieces on the continent and towards Russia, as fast as possible.
2. Your fleet exists to perform this purpose for at least the first several rounds of the game.
3. Your fleet is primarily defensive and should be mainly used to defend your transports, of which you should have at least four to be able to shuttle your max amount of build across every turn.
No single ally can reliably counter your ability to get units across for a long time, because they can't attack together. Even if you take a 1-2 punch, your ability to rebuild fleet that is already in position is much better than the Allies.
When the UK builds up in that Indian factory, they are still only putting a max of three pieces, regardless of what they build. As long as you bypass the factory through central Asia you will eventually either pincer the factory or Russia will fall to the Germans.
THAT BEING SAID, the original post asked about UK fighters build up. They pose no problem to your fleet as long as you stay out of the Burma, East Indies, or India sea spaces until you're ready to attack the territory. Even if the UK builds some bombers or fleet, they'll have a tough time against your concentrated fleet, and they'll probably lose most of their expensive air force. It's cheaper for you to replace a few destroyers and fighters than for the UK to replace bombers.
>>If the Allies build a submarine-heavy fleet, an effective counter is to build--over a few turns--bombers, fighters, and a destroyer or two (make sure you still purchase the rest infantry each turn.) The bombers help keep small allied fleets from straying and still project power across Asia. By the time the Allies arrive with naval strength, you have probably transported between 25 and 40 pieces right into Asia, vs the UK placing possibly 15-20 units and weak Russian help. Even if you lose the fleet, you might have bought enough time for Germany to take Russia.
>>If the Allies build a transport- or capital ship-heavy fleet, build bombers, fighters, and subs (only one per turn, with infantry/land still being the rest of your build.) In this scenario, the US either tries to invade Japan or send forces across to Russia, way too late. Just make sure you keep enough forces in Japan to also keep invasion at bay. You can sometimes lure the enemy fleet in by moving your subs all one space from your fleet (they can be different spaces.) This way, any fleet that attacks yours and either wins or retreats is instantly attackable with your subs and bomber support. If your subs get picked off, who cares? You still have your transports and the war rages on.
>>If the Allies build a carrier-heavy fleet, just make sure you don't attack it unless you have overwhelming odds. (Even then it isn't necessarily to your strategic advantage to win a naval attack.) It is far to your advantage to have the US attack your fleet with fighters than the other way around.
The only other Japanese defense I've ever seen work against KJF involved Japan building ICs along the coast once the Allies showed their hand. Eventually, Japan's fleet was hedged in, but they were still producing 7 pieces a turn in Asia (basically a tank in each then the rest infantry. They held out long enough for Germany to first take out Russia, then India. I mention this not as an effective gambit, more like to share fun stories of games that were out of the ordinary :)
BTW this is a great community, you all really know your stuff!
If I see J buying 6 inf a turn this means I can get an early timing on Borneo. It also means US can go for fighters and carriers which are more useful later on, instead of subs which diminish in value later in the game. With a weak navy it means US can get an IC on borneo as early as US6, and forcing the J naval stack off Japan by US8. The J ground push into russia, or is bottlenecked in burma depending on the route. Once Russia is abandoned the Russian stack will be bigger than the J stack and will be able to push east while US start stacking SEA. I have not lost to this strategy since I first reached top 10 last season.
Playing against the sub style is a lot trickier, it forces US to also go for subs since its the most efficient naval unit. 6 subs a turn is enough to hold off US navy until Russia falls, or close to it. J starts with enough ground units to secure income in china and russia, and its hard to force big trades if J keeps their main stack pivoting around yuunan. J will still lose some income, but more slowly as the money islands will be safe and Russia/UK have a hard time pushing. I'm still working on the best allied response to this strategy, currently I'm experimenting with sending more russian units and giving up russia a turn earlier.
As for holding india its a combination of pivoting the UK tank in transjordan, pivoting UK inf in persia UK2 and pivoting Russian tanks in Cauc R2. Together with the 5 allied fighters its more than enough to hold all J3 timings unless you missed on the china transport. I generally give egypt for a turn for this.
1. Under the CURRENT implementation of 1942 Online without allied carrier use, UK fighters at India are comparatively lame ducks. When that changes (I assume it will as the developers said it will), expect a lot of players to try the "new" KJF. Which is actually seven or eight years old from the board game but eh.)
2. You said Japan pushes ground in unquoted parts of your post, but I will emphasize - if you *don't* push ground with Japan, then those UK fighters WILL be a problem. It's not as easy as Japan staying out of Burma / East Indies / India sea spaces - which if quoted out of context (which happens a lot on this forum, in fact I just did it myself)
3. Three units at India is . . . technically correct. But note a non-Atlantic UK effectively pushes *five* units a turn, possibly for a while. While UK controls India, the gateway to Africa is inconvenient. So UK drops three ground a turn at India, but with Africa income usually also has the income for two fighters a turn (ish) from UK. UK fighters fly to West Russia (which helps contain the early German push for a while), then to India as needed.
I don't like 3 UK fighters as a matter of course. I'd far prefer 3 ground on India and save the rest for Atlantic transport / escort fleet. Sometimes yeah, you DO push fighters, if Axis are doing tank dash. But if the longer a game goes on, the more the lack of unit count is a problem that the Allies can't overcome.
4. "Pincer the factory or Russia will fall to the Germans" I say "cut off", not "pincered". You do get pincering in some games, but I expect being cut off is the more likely scenario - though even that shouldn't happen.
By "cut off" - I mean UK has buildup at India but (typically when it *does* happen) Japan has a Kazakh stack or Germany a Caucasus stack large enough so if UK tries to move its India units to Persia, the Axis stack blows up the UK stack at relatively low cost. There's variations of the same thing, like if UK does push Persia, maybe Japan pushes its Kazakh stack to join Germany at Caucasus, then UK can't hit Caucasus (too much defense), but if UK pushes to now-open Kazakh, then Japan hits with units from Kazakh and China (and if it's a big China stack then Japan can do the "teleport" thing and leave Germany to finish.)
Then there's a variation where Japan has mass transports at Burma. So many and so early (this scenario especially happens if UK bled out India to hit Borneo and/or reinforce Africa and maybe bled out a little elsewhere too - sometimes UK does need to -) - anyways UK has a stack on India that has nowhere to really run to. Because even if UK does run to Persia, Japan just skips India and blasts the UK stack. Or maybe even hits India *and* the UK stack at Persia.
Anyways that shouldn't happen. Because UK should see the buildup coming and pull out of India early. But what with greed, risk, and trying to make the best of things, sometimes it works out that way.
BUT - normally if Japan gives up on India and starts pushing Yunnan - then it isn't stacking Burma. There's still an invasion threat by Japanese transports coming from Yunnan, but UK doesn't have to deal with a Burma stack and can respond by sending excess units from India to Persia. Japan's Yunnan units move to Szechwan, UK's Persia units push Caucasus (assuming Germany hasn't grabbed it), then Japan moves to Kazakh (maybe doesn't stack if Germany can't push West Russia credibly), then UK India-sourced stack is safe.
And often that UK India-sourced stack is going to be pretty sizable. Probably not enough to make any sort of major breakout, but it should at least buy time.
5. Japan ICs - if you have Tank Dash to Moscow off lousy R1/G1 opening dice (lousy for the Allies anyways) then 15 IPC puts 3 tanks on the mainland (as opposed to 14 IPCs for 2 transports putting 2 tanks on the mainland). Or if Japan is super big and there's some crazy stall against Russia then Japan might want its 8 units off Japan, 3 off India, and another 3 off Manchuria. Though I'd say usually for timing issues Japan ought to either transition to late tanks to catch up with earlier landed infantry, or push Alaska to make US respond, slowing US's push in Europe. But I'd say those are exceptions.
Especially against KJF, Japan-built ICs on mainland just tie Japan down. If you sit on them, you lost mobility. If you don't sit on them, that's 15 IPCs lost for Japan, 15 IPCs US never has to spend, and US gets a timing advantage in that it has a pre-built IC all ready to produce after one full round (as opposed to capturing one round and building an IC next round then placing the round after that).
@Quintin
I'm willing to believe you're #4 Allies, and that you have 100% win rate and all sorts of nice things. Really. But bona fides are no substitute for specifics about board state.
For example, when you said Germany conquers Russia solo on G8 while Allies are doing things like fighting in China and UK's only dropping two fighters a turn and contesting France - I wrote UK wants to drop a mass of units for unit count, UK wants to mess with Karelia and rob Germany of Norway/Finland.
And my point was, if you're talking G4 Tank Dash to Moscow, then saying you're doing UK fighters / India ground IS reasonable, because you're scrambling to defend Russia and you can't be mucking about.building transport infrastructure in Atlantic. Yeah, you probably HAVE to at some point or you'll just lose on raw unit count, but it's no good having raw units just beginning to arrive in Europe after Russia's fallen.
But if you don't have a R1 dice that leave an opening for a huge German counter - and even *if* that happens if Germany doesn't capitalize - then you have a slower game. And if a lot of things get assumed and never explained, so be it.
But considering that raw unit count *is* so good - if UK *does* have a transport fleet in Atlantic and UK *doesn't* push Karelia if it can - there needs to be some real explanation for *why* that didn't happen. What specific course of action was considered superior? And again, in this scenario *Russia falls*. So we're trying to justify why Allies do things that let that happen - and it's not that the Allies had no choice in the matter.
The specifics are important to the discussion.
==
Once again, how EXACTLY does that happen? What are the circumstances that lead up to that?
Let's say, for example, that UK DOES hit the East Indies fleet. And let's say Japan does NOT hit the Hawaiian Islands fleet. These support the "weak navy" argument, yes? what a good cooperative aardvark
But it's not that simple. Or actually it IS simple but it's kinda a lot of simple things at the same time so I guess that's what people call complicated
Okay. So let's say UK did hit the East Indies fleet. What were the expectations of that battle? And I don't just mean UK's expectations. An Allies player that considers East Indies a viable UK1 target starts planning on the R1 buy phase. And though they're not "locked in", that's all the more reason to understand the expectations - under what conditions do Allies proceed with East Indies and when do they not?
But as ever, I'll just not get into that at this time. Technically the expectations and outcomes of R1 and G1 should have a really hard close look, but we'll just gloss over that for now. Especially as the breakdowns for just UK are weird enough.
==
First, East Indies and the sea battles.
1. UK wins big. Unlikely, but reasonable. But WHAT WAS LOST? (and in passing I'll note 1942 Online forces casualty assignation after each like-valued group of dice, which affects attacker decision making in this battle, though thankfully less so than the Hawaiian Islands battle.)
If UK wanted to hedge its bets, it lost its carrier first. Barring a UK carrier buy, that means the Egypt fighter (assuming of course that Germany didn't lucksack conquer Egypt on G1) can't land. But on the plus side, UK *would* have better odds on *winning* the battle overall, and blowing up both Japan's capital ships. Especially as Japanese fighters can't hit the UK sub as there's no Japanese destroyer there.
But if UK played it risky (and East Indies was risky in the first place), then it KEPT the carrier. And that's a pretty hard target for Japan to hit, especially if there's two fighters and a cruiser or two there too. If Japan doesn't deal with it, that UK carrier gives some nasty effective range extensions to UK air, especially off an India fighter build.
2. UK wins. Risky but reasonable. But again, what was lost?
3. UK loses. What was the plan for if this happened? Because there IS a fair chance.
4. UK loses big time.
Then there's the question of UK transports.
A. Borneo / New Guinea
B. Africa reinforcement / New Guinea
C. East Indies
D. Floating in south, able to hit Burma etc. next turn
E. Australia transport east, can drop to Africa UK3 and Atlantic UK4 or UK5 at latest.
F. India transport west, reaches relevance UK4-5 Atlantic.
And a number of those may play out in different ways.
1. "Turbo Burma" as I call it - anyways UK didn't hit the Kwangtung transport if it pushed East Indies. And especially if UK pulled units OUT of India, there's less there. So you put those together, and you have maybe six Japanese ground on Burma at tne end of J1, with Japan's entire air force in range of India. Depending, Japan might have 16 dice into India for J2.
And if Russia goes berserk and runs to save the day, J2 moves the Burma transports to drop off at Manchuria and uses J1 build transports to drop even more to Burma. If it wants. Or it starts Yunnan drops. But if Japan starts pushing and/or bomber builds, then the timing builds up REAL fast. Hence 'Turbo Burma".
2. "East Indies IC". Well you know how US logistics are kinda strained to East Indies, like in some setups it's a decent target but sometimes not. But if UK captures East Indies, then things maybe start getting interesting a little quickly. Tough for Japan to grab back super early if UK's already had some infantry, and if Japan *didn't* grab back instantly then UK/US fighters can land on. And if you have a dedicated KJF, then maybe you have UK pop an IC there, which ends up blocking Japan out of income and raises UK's production in the area to 7 units intstead of 4. And if UK kept its carrier off an East Indies attack, then UK even has a kinda credible seed for a navy, and if US is pushing, um . . . it gets nasty quick.
Then there's other play-outs, like "Threaten French Indochina Thailand" if you have safe UK transports in the south that didn't commit and that Japan couldn't punish. If UK committed its transports and Japan blew them up, the transport threat is over. But if UK transports *weren't* committed then they're primed for a UK2 thread - and if UK's navy / air survived, that's an even bigger threat.
So you see each of those plays out in different ways, and some of them are pretty bad for UK. So did UK even hit the East Indies fleet? If so, why? If not, why?
And if UK DID hit the East Indies fleet, what happened with Germany's battleship in Med?
Did UK consider it a precondition for the East Indies attack that Germany *fail* a German battleship vs UK destroyer battle on G1, cutting off German reinforcements to Africa? Because certainly it changes matters for the Allies if Germany doesn't have African income.
Or was it a precondition that the German battleship hit Gibraltar? Or failed a Ukraine / Caucasus push?
Or did UK not care what happened with Germany's battleship? And if so, then what did UK plan to do about German buildup in Africa? Granted that slows progress in Europe, but 1-2 German tanks can be *pretty nasty* and even if US drops to French West Africa that has opportunity costs.
. . . but wait. Maybe UK didn't hit East Indies at all? But then remember the original supposition that Japan's navy is weak. If Japan has two battleships two carriers a cruiser a destroyer six fighters and a bomber *without building anything*, you can see how that could maybe be a problem.
==
OK, so now for the Hawaiian Islands battle. And this is AFTER the UK1 open.
Depending on UK moves and buys, UK may be building to a significant threat. So especially with 1942 Online's current implementation with no use of allied carriers (again, this has been announced that it should change but it hasn't happened *yet*) - maybe Japan decides to blow up UK's navy and consolidate its position and forego Hawaiian Islands entirely.
But IF East Indies went off successfully (and maybe off a UK1 air build at India and the UK carrier surviving after an East Indies attack), then you get a buncha kinda nasty scenarios for Japan. There's only so many Japanese ships to go around. And Japan has to decide what it's going to do BEFORE US goes, which is another problem.
Let's say UK blew up East Indies, kept its carrier. Or even just blew up East Indies. What does Japan do?
Hawaiian Islands? Depending on hit allocation (and here it IS nasty that 1942 Online forces removal after each group of like-valued dice; sub at 1, destroyer/carrier at 2, fighter at 4, very nasty. And if Japan's sending Japan's fighter to the battle, then that Japan fighter must die. Or else the Caroline Islands carrier has to be committed to Hawaiian sea zone, which probably means dead carrier. And Japan with one battleship and no cruisers and three fighters down (one guaranteed off Hawaii; even if it survived US will kill it, and two more at East Indies) is a sad sad Japan.
And does Japan really want at least 1 fighter and bomber stranded in the middle of nowhere? Even on J2 those units probably can only fly back into range of Asia.
So here's a few breakdowns, starting with Japan's buy.
1. Japan sees East Indies blew up. Very sad. Japan shrugs, buys two transports to bring its total to four transports, and the rest ground. If US pushes in Pac *then* Japan can start subs. (Maybe. More on this later.)
2. Japan sees East Indies blow up. OH NO! Japan buys subs. The more Japan buys, the more US can shrug and pop down a US1 Atlantic fleet instead of Pacific.
So what does Japan do? Hm?
Then Japan has to decide about its attacks.
A. Hawaiian Islands? If so, Japan's down three fighters, and a fourth fighter and bomber are out of commission for an extra turn as they'll have to return. And that's the good scenario. If the Hawaiian Islands battle goes bad, Japan can't even retreat well; if they land on an island US hits with 2 inf 2 fighter 1 battleship support shot and probably even MORE of Japan's air dies. No retreat.
B. Consolidation? Where, specifically? If UK1 carrier survived and UK1 air at India, then you have a really nasty threat against the Yunnan sea zone - or generally ANYWHERE in the southwest. If Japan wants to drop to the coast at all, maybe it drops west of Japan - but it has to worry about probably 2 UK fighters off the carrier if the UK carrier DID survive plus a UK bomber. That's nothing to sneeze at. And I believe Japan's Caroline Islands fleet can't reach. So what does Japan do? Build destroyer? Second carrier right off?
And if Japan consolidates at, say, Borneo or something - it misses a drop to Asia, those are units that can *never be replaced* - Japan NEVER recovers the timing. And even if Japan DOES do some sort of heavy push into the face of UK, that leaves the door open for US1 push to Iwo Jima, which interdicts Japan's waters for J2.
Well a LOT hinges on that UK1 carrier surviving after an East Indies attack, see? In one aftermath, Japan is blowing up all over Asia. In the other aftermath Japan is huddled in a corner.
And even if the UK carrier *doesn't* survive, maybe UK *built* a carrier at India, right? Which can get really nasty if UK failed the East Indies attack hard but if it *didn't* fail so hard then maybe that can be a problem.
(continued)
SO let's return to the assertion. US6 at Borneo. IF you ASSUME that things went VERY favorably for the Allies, and that Japan WAS greedy (hey, I would be), OR if you assume that UK paid the costs (like for a carrier build at India) and got at least moderately lucky so wasn't horribly punished - those ARE assumptions, and kind of big ones at that. But we can see how that DOES play out; US1 push to Iwo Jima (unpunished), UK's navy free to roam about south Pacific, Allied fleets uniting - yeah, I can see US6 control of Borneo with a bit of snowballing.
BUT
If the Allies took risks, maybe things DON'T turn out so sweetly. And depending on the outcomes, who can say? I wrote earlier that Japan starts dropping 2 subs a turn starting J2 after seeing a US1 Pacific build.
So let's just count up. Let's make some assumptions and fudge a bit and say Japan has two battleships, two carriers, a destroyer, a cruiser, six fighters, a bomber, and nine subs by J5. I'm assuming East Indies was NOT hit and the Kwangtung destroyer/transport died, and Japan cut off UK fleet reinforcements from India. It's just kinda simpler. Otherwise we have to think about German progression in Africa and the timing change on the push against Europe - especially if UK's response is weaker, then we have to *define* UK's response a lot more closely. Which by all means, let's totally have that conversation but when we do, let's really remember all the risks that need to pay off and how things can turn out not so nicely when we DO go there.
Why J5?
That means US captures on US5, secures it against Japan retaking for US6, which is when the US IC goes up.
And sure, US might have interdicted Japan to prevent Japan building subs. But that's more characteristic of an Iwo Jima or Alaska push than Borneo.
US1 we'll say has 1 battleship, 1 carrier, 2 destroyer, 1 sub, 4 fighters, bomber, cruiser, 3 transports. Of course US can't REALLY push all that early; most of it has to move into position. But it can all get to Borneo by US5 so good enough. And note this means NOTHING to Africa. So this is where you really gotta look at this and think if UK *didn't* blow up Germany's Med fleet on UK1 and Germany dropped 1-2 tanks into Africa, they've been running around completely unopposed so Germany's bank is pretty big.
Anyways. The US5 push to Borneo can only carry the US1-3 builds. Because it takes two turns to reach Borneo. "but wait aardvark
So with cute tricks like that in mind let's look at Borneo. The "obvious" trick you use whenever you can is to destro-block. And you can see how this does sort of work.
Say Japan put its main fleet off Yunnan. US put its main fleet at Solomons. US destroyer at Solomons moves to Philippine Islands sea zone, blocking the J5 sub build. 'Course you don't destro block as a matter of course, usually it's when you want to gain more than you lose, but we ARE talking about a critical J5 attack here right? (Well not REALLY, more on that later.) But for now, let's say we ARE looking at the J5 build against the US5 push to Borneo.
So . . . let's just kinda add things up here. Let's say US1-3 averages 41 IPC a turn. We have 123 IPCs off that, then let's say the US4 build is carrier / 2 fighters.
So US5 at Borneo is its starting forces, minus a destroyer for the block, plus 123 IPCs worth of units, plus two fighters. Expllicitly, that's 1 battlehship, 1 carrier, 1 destroyer, 1 sub, 4 fighters, bomber (can't defend though) and cruiser PLUS 123 IPC plus 2 fighters.
Well you see how this changes the fleet composition. It's not that *I* want to say the US MUST buy whatever. But you can see where if you can pop six fighters somewhere, it would be really convenient to have three carriers. And if you're going wandering off anywhere, then you definitely want a couple destroyers. One destroyer CAN hold you over for a while - maybe. But if Japan pulls a tech switch into air only attacks, or spreads subs all over the map, or does a buncha weird shenanigans - um, yeah, destroyers are pretty flexible.
So we'll say two carriers one destroyer for 36 IPC.
The core US forces are then 1 battleship 3 carriers 6 fighters 1 cruiser 2 destroyers 1 sub plus 87 IPC. Let's call it 10 subs 3 destroyers. 28 hit points 58 defensive power. Sound about right? And the skew is nice, defensive 1s get chopped off but the defensive 4's last a long time.
Now compare to Japan's forces. We said two battleships, two carriers, a destroyer, a cruiser, six fighters, a bomber, and nine subs. But we cut that by two subs because of US's block at the Philippines. So only seven subs. 22 hit points 51 attack power.
Annnd let's just reiterate. This is with Allies having some counter to German income in Africa, *only* US pushing Pacific, leaving UK free to do whatever. And yeah MAYBE Germany has African income, but maybe UK cleaned that up, and that does look pretty good . . . right?
But this is where the differences in our assumptions come up again.
You're assuming G8 captures Moscow - and that's if Allies are frittering away their resources, which is how I characterized 2 fighter reinforcements to Moscow and trading France rather than building pressure on Karelia. And you're saying Japan has zero presence in Asia, which I said feeds into Allied coffers, and that Russia's pushing China. And my assertion was maybe you *don't* get G8 capture of Moscow if Allies do something different.
And I'm assuming G6 lockdown of Europe. MAYBE capture of Russia, ESPECIALLY if the Allies have been pushing resources everywhere else. But understand really how different that scenario is. Russia's income is entirely choked off from both west and east, and Russia is in real danger of falling. If the Allies DID take precautions against Russia's capture, that probably means relatively ineffective air - and with Germany's income really high, it can afford to push tanks So the question is where Allied reinforcements come from. India's probably fallen. US is only *just* coming to Borneo. (Revisiting that in a bit.) Even if US lands along the coast, that doesn't vaporize Japan's units that already pushed to the interior of Asia. That means US has to catch up. And that's going to be slow. Germany has maybe 4-5 turns, at LEAST, before it really has to worry about any serious Allied reinforcements. (Again, this is the KJF scenario).
And yes, Japan DOES get pushed off the coast. But UK *also* got pushed off Atlantic. And that's not depending on Germany. That's right in line with the same doctrine I've said Japan should be following - early subs, transitioning to later fighters. With no US reinforcements at Atlantic, the combined German / Japanese air threat is REALLY big. UK gets pushed out.
. . . which is why I really don't like KJF, you know? Like if Japan doesn't mess up its air force, I don't even know what the heck Allies should do.
So in the scenario I'm describing - Japan's getting pushed off the coast, but Japan doesn't *care* - because it has income off Africa and west Asia and India for a while, and India allows Japan to reinforce its fleet. Japan can never be cut off. Or if it can, I haven't seen any explanation of how that happens exactly, nor can I think of one. Assuming India falls, which I think it *does*. Because J3's building pushing 8 ground a turn even if it's only building 6 ground a turn as it's evacuating Philippines and East Indies for J2-J3, So you get that, and the Yunnan shift, and you have a LOT of dice pushing India by J4. And all of this doesn't assume Japan has phantom forces - it's just the J1 build so Japan ends up with four transports then J2+ six ground and two subs, and when Japan's income outpaces that production Japan saves for switching to air later.
So it's like . . . if the Allies get lucky, if they do other things, then they have to pay *somewhere*. But no matter what happens, the Allies have really awkward logistics to reinforce Russia at that point, and that *does* add up. Inevitably. Disagree?
==
Then let's look at the other scenario. Suppose Germany pushes Russia, and Russia does NOT divert to India, suppose India is ABANDONED to reinforce Russia. And suppose I'm right that if the Allies simply change from trying to drop France to pushing Karelia that disrupts Germany's logistics more properly (well I AM right about that, the question is what the tradeoffs are - but what ARE the bad tradeoffs there? exactly?) You can see why I would think, as I wrote, maybe Germany does NOT grab Russia on G8. And even if it DOES - a SLOW Axis is not good. Slower Axis gives Allies more time to build, more time for US to progress. Right?
(continued)
Looping back to US6 IC on Borneo - let's revisit that a bit.
Let's discard the idea that Japan misplays. And I don't mean some big obvious misplay, let's say Japan REALLY thinks everything through.
Something I always say is - you don't want shifting goalposts in an argument. It's like someone defines a case, then they have to stick by it right? If people start redefining what they're saying, well what's all that about.
But . . . . (biggest troll face ever)
Let's be clear about this! When others are vague and do shifting goalposts, it's because they don't know what they're on about. When *I* shift goalposts it's NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE.
Because just suppose (for example) that Germany does a timing push to capture Russia. And all our standard assumptions are that Germany builds infantry nonstop against KGF, and Germany is always defended. But suppose Germany suddenly drops tanks on Karelia, Caucasus, bombers on Germany, and moves everything else out of Germany? I mean yeah, maybe France and Baltic States are now super well defended, but you can't just miss the fact that Germany can be captured with ease.
So too - when I say that Japan starts with two subs a turn, that IS the "standard". But in actual play conditions, that blanket recommendation has to be adjusted to fit game conditions.
Let's define UK's and Russia's roles. We've already said US is going 100% full out on Japan.
Let's say Russia hasn't fought in the east. Which is an assumption. But you can see where it makes sense. European territories are worth 2. Asia territories are worth 1. (Most of 'em). Russia can't fight both - if you send artillery or tanks east, they're WAY out of the position to fight in the west. Until Japan gets quite close. Then Russia fights - provided it makes sense economically and provided Russia isn't trying to do something like a German stack break or other things. So we'll say here that Russia is pretty well tied up with Germany.
As to UK - we'll say it HASN'T bought air (I know, the premise of the OP, but if Allies want to have a chance of stopping Germany from grabbing Russia, UK *must* get Atlantic transports.
And let's say UK's been using its air to keep Germany out of Africa. And maybe other targets, but anyways UK's air really isn't great.
So it comes down to - what is it? Seven ground on India at end of UK1 plus AA gun, then you have perhaps three or four Allied fighters depending on the situation plus three ground each turn. If Allied fighters aren't needed at India, probably they pop on West Russia, which is nice.
And this assumes UK dumped India units to Africa to help secure it. Especially if UK has some air left over, it probably will at that.
Annd let's assume Germany hit Trans-Jordan successfully, UK blew up the German battleship and lost its bomber and a fighter between that and maybe finishing off a German cruiser in the Atlantic.
So let's say seven infantry at end of UK1 (count artillery as infantry as we're considering the defense most), AA gun, three more "infantry" every turn and up to four UK/US fighters.
Now for Japan. Let's say UK blew up the Kwangtung destroyer / transport, Japan built 3 transports. Which isn't deviation from "2 subs a turn" at all, as I've said that only happens *after* the US1 fleet drop in Pacific. And let's say UK sent its fleet all over the place towards Atlantic, so they're Germany's headache somewhere down the line.
J1 is opportunistic attacks, probably leaving some openings. If Russia put an infantry at Szechwan, Japan CAN lock Russia out of freely walking into Kwangtung by defending, though that slows the J1 push. But Russian income is really awful so . . . yeah.
So J2 plays out differently sometimes. Depending on Japan openings and US1/R2/UK2 moves, maybe Japan has to spend J2 consolidating. But maybe not. And it comes down to if the Allies DID pressure Japan to consolidate, that requires commitment that pulls away from the Allies' European front. There is no way to avoid this. And if the Allies *didn't* pressure Japan then Japan dumps 8 units to Yunnan on J2.
J3 Japan pushes Burma and lands more units at Yunnan. That sets the stage for J4 capture of India.
By this point UK can have up to 16 infantry 4 fighters. But again that does come with costs. Germany pressures Russia pretty seriously by now. If Allied fighters are at India on J4, they are NOT at West Russia. And remember again the timing. I said G2 infantry build, G3 push to Poland / Baltic States, G4 push to Ukraine / Karelia. And Germany goes *before* UK and US. J4 fighters at India mean less fighters on West Russia against a critical G5 push And if G5 pushes West Russia and holds, then at *best* Russia must surrender Caucasus.
And remember again what I wrote about UK getting cut off at India. If Germany holds the Caucasus in serious force and can kill UK's stack if it pushes to Persia, then that's a problem. And if you have Japan leapfrogging India to grab Africa, that's also a problem.
Anyways returning to the J4 push. J2 drop to Yunnan of eight units, J3 drop of six units. The base is fourteen ground, six fighters, one bomber, and bombards off battleships and cruiser. This is against sixteen ground, AA gun, four fighters. The battle does NOT favor the Allies. Close. But if Japan hits and wins, then UK has no stack. And we just did say that West Russia collapsed.
And there's really no way to make it good.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwkQbGamtvQ
Like what are you going to do really? Not back up Africa? German income from Africa is the Holy Grail for Axis. You could take that risk though. Or maybe you could divert Russian units to India. I mean, West Russia's collapsing anyways so . . . . ?
But once West Russia collapses, then stuff REALLY starts eroding pretty fast for the Allies.
==
Remember US6 IC on Borneo?
Right. So what I'm saying is when you press here, you have to give up there. It's not "magical" or whatever, but there ARE real costs and timing issues, see?
So if I've established that J4 has a really serious shot on India, what does that mean exactly?
Well for a US5 push to Borneo (and it'll be super obvious because US has this gigantic frickin fleet at Solomons), again - THE J5 BUILD CAN HIT. And you get some other nasty things going on too.
Because let's say Japan DID shift off Yunnan on J4 to hit India. Well what did that mean? And what if the US *is* at Solomons preparing for Borneo? The US fleet isn't threatening Japan is it? And if you want to do a bit of goalpost shifting of your own, go on. Where IS the US fleet? Is it at Caroline Islands? Because if the J4 fleet main fleet is posted at Yunnan like we said it was, then we're changing all the timings, aren't we. Yes we are. We're not talking about US5 optimized at Borneo, We're talking US3 at Caroline Islands.
So you can see even if Allies DO shift goalposts (which they should), it's not easy.
And as long as we're acknowledging shifting goalposts - it's tough for Japan to have Japanese fighters in position to reinforce German push AND in position to punish US press in Pacific AND threaten India. Something's got to give. But it won't be easy for Allies in any event, right?
So let's get back to this goalpost shifting. Let's say J4 captures India. Well once Japan grabs India, Allies won't get it back; if Japan was in position to contest India on the offensive, certainly they'll be able to hold it especially if Germany pops a couple fighters there. That's not usual, but it can be done, and it works, and Axis can see the need for it a mile away if they ARE thinking.
Anyways what I'm building to here is - we assumed that one US destroyer stopped 2 Japanese subs. But I'm saying if Japan is NOT threatened by US invasion, then US is free to NOT build any cheap ground for defense and can instead build a bomber. Which it should, because if you're going for a major stack battle (J4 India), you pad the odds as much as you can. And you can still pop a couple subs out on J4.
But then . . . J5.
Yeah, that sounded pretty good. Before I started with all these goalpost shifting shenanigans.
But now? We add a bomber and three subs to Japan and one destroyer to US. Because Japan can build subs at INDIA now, and US can't destroyer block Borneo from India units. And the bomber, of course, was for India. But that's not all. Japan has India. It really doesn't need to do anything much except bleed out Africa and defend its money islands.
So we're saying the bomber was built on J4 (along with the usual 2 Japanese subs). That's only 24 IPC, with Japan pushing an income of 34-35 perhaps? I think that's reasonable. So MAYBE we pop another fighter on Japan with that leftover 10 IPC eh? Or let's be nasty and make it two more subs . . .
And the J5 build? Well we have three subs at India. But that's still 12 IPCs open right? So let's pop on a bomber.
So that's two bombers, a fighter, and five subs more to Japan. 30 hit points 72 attack power.
And US is now at 29 hit points 60 defense power.
You can see where this is starting to get ugly. But we're not done yet.
What happens if Japan hits the US fleet? You could say well . . . who knows. Close. But what if Japan hits and withdraws?
The skew on the US fleet is very nice, with a load of defensive 1's. But Japan has two battleships so can absorb an extra hit. And US's logistics are strained. If Japan retreats to the Burma sea zone, probably US will not really have the forces to hit back in force.
So when you have an attack that probably can't really be punished, what do you do? Probably you hit. And if you get lucky probably you win right there. If US's main Pac fleet is destroyed and Japan still has a pretty good base, US can mass on Borneo even after building an IC but US won't be able to catch up.
If the dice are a little bad for Japan - so be it. Japan *is* advantaged.
(continued)
So to sum up to this point, I'm saying it looks pretty good for Japan. They have an odds-on battle and even if they *fail*, there's a good possibility they probably at *least* have an odds-on for a safe retreat into a push for a strictly superior position next turn.
But that isn't the limit of Japan's options.
Japan can ignore Borneo.
Japan has a load of transports that can push Africa. And from there, Brazil. This shuts off US income. And Japan is very hard to dislodge from India.
So let's say US runs up and down the Asia coast. That's going to take a while. And if US shifts off Borneo, then Japan has that gigantic navy and air force, plus a bunch of transports. And meantime, Germany is really developing its threat.
Sure, UK is trying to land things at Atlantic. But if Japan pushes its mighty air force to Europe, then UK has to run away. Of course that lets US expand too.
But let's say US chops Japan up, Japan goes -11 IPC from money islands, -8 IPC from loss of coastal territories. But Japan is +3 for India, +1 for Burma, +1 for Persia, +1 for Madgascar - and unless Allies do something about it +3 Brazil and +5-6 Africa. Japan is still very very dangerous, and it robbed UK to get those gains.
While all this is happening - well, we know that UK got cut off in the Atlantic with Japan's crazy air force. So Germany really has nothing to do but push tanks.
So let's say US is at 61 IPC. UK's at whatever (it's a non-issue as it's cut off). Germany at 50ish, Japan at 25ish. And Japan has its mighty fleet and air.
Now, is US going to be able to reinforce Russia in time? If it CAN get an infantry stream . . . that's very very nice. But if it can't - if it's just ONE turn late - then Germany drops the hammer on Russia.
I mean really. Russia's income is choked off (it's beginning to get some from the east but it's NOT a lot), UK's cut off, Germany is leaping at Russia, and India is cut off. What does Russia do? Retreat? Fight a losing stack battle?
Once the Axis control Russia, Caucasus, and India, that's 15 units production. And a lot of it, if the Axis have been doing the builds I said they should be pushing, is tanks that can redirect. So what's US doing?
Suppose US is trying to push 20 units a turn to meet its mighty income. How? Ten transports can offload from Alaska every turn, but that requires seven transports be built (49 IPC) plus 100% ground production. And Japan IS going to be eyeing those money islands. Can US really afford to just go ground?
But if US *doesn't* go ground, then how will it match Axis pushing 15 units a turn? And that's just the leftovers from Axis local ICs. Germany can still be building navy at Med, Japan can still be building air or subs at Japan.
And no matter *what* US does, it needs to leverage its income. ICs or transports, it's going to be slow and costly.
I mean yeah, it IS a pain to push US off the money islands. Especially if US dropped ICs there. But if Russia falls, where are the Allied outs? And if Russia doesn't fall, how is that made to happen? I don't even think it likely that Russia can weaken the Axis push enough to prevent Axis from pushing US right off the coast.
let's make kjf great again
So I said - allied carrier use is important. Right? From the beginning? And I showed how you can't even ignore it in KGF in that google document I wrote up. But just think about the applications in KJF.
All that timing stuff I was writing about - what do you think happens if UK fighters land on US carriers?
The timings change. A LOT. Not just defensive. You get fun new attack possibilities too.
So while this is another testament to the IMPORTANCE of USING ALLIED CARRIERS (and allied TRANSPORTS is important too, believe me and just ask for the long version if you want it - in another thread though) -
When allied carriers ARE implemented in 1942 Online (which I know, don't count chickens before they're hatched but I figure the devs said it so - )
WHEN that happens then KJF will CHANGE. Well okay, TECHNICALLY it'll just kinda be like how it was in the eight year old board game, so it'll um . . . change back? whatever? even though defensive profiles and removing casualties after each group of like-valued dice will still be a problem? and if allied transport use isn't implemented . . . well I digress
Anyways yeah just look out for that.
The super short version - even against KJF, Japan pushes ground into Asia via transports. If you don't, then you get rolled up in Asia. If you use ICs you get locked down in a static defense you can't win; you have to have transports so you can run off to Africa. If you can crack India that's expected *even in the KJF scenario* - and if Allies fortify India heavily that just accelerates Germany's timetable in Europe.
But in the KJF scenario, you also want to fight off the Allies in the Pacific. You don't have to go crazy about it, and you should never fight a bad-odds battle whether attacking or defending.
In a lot of scenarios, you can start dropping 2 Japanese subs a turn AFTER you see the US1 drop. But NOT ALWAYS.
The exceptions to remember are 1) if East Indies fleet is destroyed, 2) US1 hits Iwo Jima to interdict Japan's waters. Then things can get tricky. You can often threaten 2) off if you do Japan's moves so everything can hit Iwo Jima in case US DOES deciide to push there.
And again - once allied carrier use is implemented, everything changes. Changes so much it's totally useless to have that discussion here, it's a totally different discussion with different timings and *everything*.
So there I just wrote - you have to watch East Indies fleet (sz37) and Iwo Jima. So *doesn't* it hinge?
(And again, as those questions were really directed off a UK-centric inquiry a separate thread would be appropriate to really answer the intent of the question).
No matter what happens, the basics of the board are still the same. If you push down here, something else pops up there.
==
An example? Well I wanted to loop this thing back and address UK1 to East Indies. I'd say usually players don't hit East Indies (though maybe they should) because it IS risky, and you need to have very specific objectives in mind if you want any sort of decent followthrough (whether win or lose). And East Indies attack wasn't specified by the OP or by Quintin who I was responding to. But it does bear mentioning.
Also I want to address that UK Atlantic fleet thing.
==
Suppose UK1 does hit East Indies. Let's set the stage.
If East Indies was hit that normally means the Egypt fighter lived (That is, Germany didn't take Egypt. The Egypt fighter probably dies in the East Indies attack later though of course.) (Let's say Germany hit Trans-Jordan and took it). We know UK is sending all its stuff in the area to hit East Indies. So UK's not hitting other targets. That means
1) German battleship and transport live.
2) Japanese destroyer and transport live.
Win or lose, you change the numbers on US6 IC at Borneo. But there's different degrees of success and failure. Even some "win" scenarios set up J1 "Turbo Burma".
Anyways let's start picking things apart. German battleship and transport live.
(You COULD argue that the German battleship loses against the UK destroyer. It seems dumb to base the case on the . . . whatever it is, 6%ish. But you COULD say you only do the East Indies attack as a "tech" play IF the German battleship dies. Which is reasonable enough. But I won't ASSUME that's the case for the MAIN discussion.)
So G2 what happens? Where's UK air? Post UK1 East Indies, probably not in range of the German battleship. So we have a G2. And then? Maybe Germany pops a cruiser at Med. Which . . . depending on the UK buy maybe is smart, maybe not. But it's a possibility. Or maybe Germany just drops to Egypt, and maybe UK has a fighter / bomber attack lined up, which has decent odds of failure which is pretty catastrophic - and if G2 is dropping units to Africa probably Germany can't really be stopped there anyways at that point.
Now yes, pulling units out of Europe DOES change the balance of power there. And it takes a little while for Germany's investment in Africa to pay off. But instead of J5ish starting to chop apart Africa, the erosion starts G2. And that does add up. Germany loses timing in Europe, but if Germany has a Med fleet, it can drop to Ukraine and Caucasus - and the G3-4 timing on that is *after* Africa is secure and just about when the G1-G2 infantry builds are catching up to the front anyways. So it works out pretty nicely.
And then you just get really weird and nasty things happening for players that are used to more traditional German timings. Germany has a chunk of Africa income, so it can pump out more units in Europe. And if it maintains the *same unit count* which is what you might expect if it's trying to defend multiple fronts, the *quality* of those units increases. Infantry become tanks.
And if you have a German tank on Baltic States, that threatens Archangel, Finland, West Russia, Ukraine, France, *and* defends Baltic States. So adding to a German tank stack is really nasty and fun (if you're Germany).
. . . and that means? All things taken, that means if you DO use UK to try to push up the timetable on US6 IC in Borneo, that makes Germany nastier in Europe. Oh, it doesn't happen right away. And Germany has to play correctly for it to work correctly. But that's what should happen.
And that has some consequences. If Japan knows that Germany has access to African income, then Japan can afford to lend less support to Germany. Probably Japan *shouldn't* turtle anyways. But it's not like Japan has to divert to Africa to start cutting off UK funds. That's already done.
And if US drops to French West Africa? Then those transports definitely won't be in play in the Pacific on US5 - along with any escorts US may have sent. And if there aren't any escorts, who knows?
==
OK so about the UK Atlantic thing. I wrote I prefer to save for UK fleet in Atlantic. But I also wrote that Japan pushes air to Europe to push UK fleet off. So how do I reconcile those?
Look yeah? I could try to dress it up like some mystic BS about next level genius stuff and rationalize it as "success justifies my claim! hur dur!" Buuut nah. The FACT is I play greedy and sloppy, and I get away with a LOT because typically I just don't get punished. And when I get away with it, I just do it more and more.
The basic THOUGHT (such as there is) behind saving for a UK Atlantic fleet even in KJF is - well, infantry are very cost-effective. IF you have an Atlantic fleet, Germany has to deal with it one way or another. If Germany pushes air, that's less tanks. If Germany just does ground push, if it pushes Russia fast and early, UK grabs Karelia and cuts off Germany's line of reinforcement. If Germany bulks Karelia to stop UK from pushing, Germany still loses Norway / Finland income *and* those Germany units can't pressure Russia for a little while. And if Germany just ignores UK, then UK just keeps dropping into Europe - and if Allies hold West Russia and some India units came up, then there's the "teleport" trick of Finland and West Russia hitting Karelia and retreating into West Russia - though that only works against Germany players that didn't prepare for that (which isn't free of charge to Germany either.)
So Germany is slowed one way or another . . . unless Japan sends air. Supposedly.
But if Japan DOES send air, then that opens up US's options in the Pacific.
. . . that's the THEORY.
But it only really works that way if Japan over-commits to the Pacific. If Japan just shrugs and says "yeah sure, grab Manchuria or Borneo or whatever" then it's kinda tough. US sails around shouting "hey look at me, I'm relevant, I'm important, don't ignore me" and Japan's like "lol" while Russia gets poleaxed.
THEORETICALLY you could leverage US's gains and Japan CAN'T ignore US. But in practical terms, the timing is just bad.
I mean yeah I'm KINDA thinking about KJF on some level, but it's like - why bother? When (if) use of allied carriers is implemented the whole thing changes anyways.
That just happened to me two games in a row playing as Germany.