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
If you're going for Japan first, reinforce India with whatever you can. You can send fighters from England or America, send Russian troops down if practical, and if you still can't hold it, prepare a counter attack so Japan can't use the IC.
There also aren't any real details provided. Nobody can advise if nobody knows what's going on.
I'll just take this one sentence.
Knowing Japan is pushing India does NOT mean you know the opponent's strategy. Or your own.
Suppose you're a shepherd trying to protect sheep from wolves. Your "strategy" is not to know wolves want mutton. Your strategy is what you use to deal with the problem - whether it's traps or bait or sheepdogs or a neighborhood shepherd watch or hiring hunters or some combination or whatever.
Saying Japan's coming after India is like that. On some level you're thinking that's useful information. But it's just too vague, like wolves wanting mutton, it doesn't really address the issue.
Then there's Egypt doesn't have the fighter after G1? Why not? I mean, that's a REALLY big assumption.
So what happened? Russia tried a W Rus / Ukr attack and got smoked in Ukr horribly and had to retreat? Germany broke W Rus open to choke off Russian income and also blew up Egypt big-time, cutting off the Suez? Is this the LHTR setup even?
And G1 attack on Egypt isn't that great on dice anyways so that says something about Germany player's risk preferences . . . I mean really, there's just a lot going on there. Did Russia try to stack Buryatia? Full retreat of Asian units towards Karelia? What's going on?
No idea.
And why does it make a difference? Because UK1 three infantry on India plus flying UK fighters to West Russia if Russia held W Rus means more unit count at India, probably timely. There's that, if nothing else.
And then the other questions, like hitting SZ 37 - what is that, the Japanese East Indies fleet? So probably you're not hitting the Japanese transport/destroyer off Kwangtung, which means Japan has an accelerated open against Burma and maybe almost immediate pressure towards India that can increase with Japanese bomber buys?
And there's no mention of what Russia did at all - not just at W Rus / Ukr but also Buryatia, Soviet Far East, Yakut, was a Russian infantry sent to bolster - what was it, Szechwan? the 2 US infantry and fighter somewhere in China anyways. And all of that is going to factor into Japan's decisions when it pushes India, so should be accounted for.
Just off that one sentence, there's a book of unanswered questions.
You can see the questions are relevant. So ask yourself, if you're not providing answers to those sorts of questions, what sort of useful advice can you possibly get? Other players are going to *assume* all sorts of things, and when those assumptions aren't what the board situation is, tough toenail.
Here, I'll pop you some answers using *assumptions* I'll make. See if these answers help. I don't think they will. But hey.
No.
No.
What's that, the UK carrier/destroyer near India? If so, no.
No.
No.
Run away or attack.
np
My general question was based on how games unravel as I play them.
I currently have more questions than I do answers, I am not looking for killer strategy, I am more looking at understanding basics.
These are all games using the Gencon set up.
I understand the concept of KGF or KJF, after I looked them up on google, what I am looking for is an understanding of the building and attack/defense logic
For instance:
Russia:
My current thinking is: Attacking anything would appear to be madness, trying to do much but survive as you wait for the allies to come to your help would seem to be best, thus I assume troops are best for purchasing.
However I see people attack Ukraine, all be it that they often do a in and out attack (strafe?). And for reasons I am unclear on, the bomber the Germans have in Ukraine seems super important to kill. I assume its to stop it being used elsewhere, but is the idea to throw massive forces into Ukraine no matter what, if so how do you reasonably defend the Caucasus? Some people seem to give up on Karelia straight away, still others head towards Japan, though not in force.
How would it change between KGF or KJF?
Germany:
So far it seems to be wise to pressure Russia, move troops in waves towards the western front and buy more men than I think I need. I am confused about Egypt and Africa as I can't seem to figure out the best way to deal with it. Yet I see people playing Germany who buy navy, that would seem to be bonkers, they must have a strategy, usually its aircraft carrier in the med. Naval destruction of the British seems sensible. After than I dont really have a firm idea hwo to progress other than towards Russia.
If the allies decide to KGF how would it change? Same thing if they got for Japan?
U.K
I struggle most here (hence my original question), I am unsure how to best deal with Egypt and India, it would seem sensible to try to hold India, the three limit seems to make it clear that its important what I put there, so right now I lean towards tanks. But of late the enemy move I see most is a massive Japan navy arriving on the first turn. So i have a few naval units, some stuff in Oz and I was struggling to understand how to deal with this Japan advance. As I go first, maybe I just hold to see what the japan player will do, however if they then DO arrive in force I am unsure how to deal with it. With the mainland I am also having trouble understanding the best way to built a force that can leave the UK, do I save and then splurge on ships? Or is air power a better bet, maybe just bombers and peck at German factories?
If you are doing KJF what changes?
Japan:
Well, the only move I see a lot that seems to cause trouble is this massive advance to India. Building a factory on the mainland looks dangerous, so I don't do that. Killing the US troops in China seems sensible.I am unsure if its worth sailing around my mini islands to collect my troops. I mostly ignore Oz, I always attack pearl harbor, it seems wise to weaken the US navy at the start. I never look to the US mainland, that seems too far and costly to attack.
If the allies go KJF how should you react, same thing from KGF, how do you be the most helpful?
USA:
I decide if I should go pacific or Europe, I base this off the first moves, from there I basically have to remember not to change my mind, commit to navy, though I mostly just get destroyers. Then its build up transport capability. If pacific I try to bulk my fleet together and hunt down the Japan navy or blockade Japan. If Europe, I move units to Canada and set up a shuttle to NW UK. I might grab Morocco if I get the chance.
I mostly focus on just one side depending on my focus, I assume this is correct regardless of KGF or KJF?
Lastly, I am sure these are numpty questions and have probably been answered multiple times in multiple places, your understanding is appreciated.
Thanks
ThatBarnettbloke
discord with devs and helpful people
If I ever get around to making some guides it'll be something like this:
1. Cost efficiency (already have this written, it's on Steam guides)
2. Getting things to where they’re cost efficient
3. Opportunity cost of raw cost efficiency - cost in flexibility (e.g. German tanks on Baltic States), speed (e.g. German bombers hit Moscow)
4. Existing board state and logistics affect how game develops (e.g. UK at India)
5. Theaters (Africa, Atlantic, Pacific)
6. Theater operations (German fighters on Karelia)
First, understand the mathematics and costs. If you're paying 3 IPC per casualty and your opponent's paying 6, that's not really sustainable if it's trading unit for unit.
But the cost efficient stuff has drawbacks - especially mobility for infantry and needing to attack for subs. So you have to think about those things. It's not just about movement, it's also about force composition. If you have a stack of only infantry, it's pretty lame. If you have a chunk of tanks and air backing that up, it's a potent threat - it can be *cost efficient*.
If you get raw cost efficient units (infantry), that means not buying more flexible units. Say you have German tanks on Baltic States. They defend Germany's reinforcement line to Karelia, threaten Archangel, Finland, West Russia, Ukraine, Caucasus, France. Or say you're pushing on Moscow and you want something that can contribute to that stack attack. Infantry and tanks at Berlin won't catch up in time; you build bombers.
There's a balance to it all - not a mystical "tao of Axis and Allies" BS thing, or an easy rule of thumb - but literally you can calculate it all out - the attacks, the drawbacks, etc, for every unit on the board. That's a big component of optimal play.
Up to that point it's mostly abstractions, learning the basic math, with a few applications to show how it works in practice. Those abstractions are the base for understanding the practical applications in detail.
One of the more basic practical applications is UK at India. UK can push 3 units a turn there, Japan 6-8. So that's how that goes. But there's also other factors to consider, like German income from Africa, why that's bad (because of German logistics against Russia), German advance towards securing Caucasus, then Japan's option to take India with ground while retreating its navy, *or* pushing its navy and possibly grabbing points in Africa and skipping India - then there's some other variations and things I won't get into. But basically you should be able to see how applying the first three abstract lessons applies to UK at India, along with a new consideration - existing forces on board and dice outcomes and logistics and timing affecting what battles are "good" or "bad".
That last because Germany's existing forces and dice outcomes and logistics and timing affect how hard it can push Ukraine. If Germany secures Ukraine, then Russia has to defend both West Russia and Caucasus. If Russia allows Germany to capture and secure Caucasus, then Germany can drop four units a turn at Caucasus plus two at Karelia, which if Russia's income is cut to 20 or so probably matches the six units Russia's putting out - then there's Germany's huge existing forces and whatever reinforcements are catching up to the front lines. And IF Germany secures Caucasus in force then UK's cut off at India, if UK retreats to Persia *after* Germany grabbed Caucasus in force maybe it's too late - Germany can't be dislodged; UK had to retreat to Persia to threaten Caucasus *before* Germany grabbed Caucasus. Right, anyways I'll leave off, you get the general idea.
Then there's theaters. Like you get one or two battles there and it can be decisive depending on the timing, because of board position, logistics, and timing. Like say German income in Africa. It's dangerous because Germany has huge production capability that can be directed against Russia a lot faster than if Japan had the income. Plus Germany had its huge starting forces; feeding money into bulking up fast and strong German reinforcements is just a problem for the Allies. But it's not like the Allies can easily dump to Africa; if they do it delays them in Finland/Norway and it's slow and Japan can counter and etc. Anyways what with efficient logistic lines depending on map properties, board states (how many of what units are where for what nation), you get fights in different areas of the board, and you have to think about how much you can afford to give up in one position to get another.
Like if Russia is super secure, then if Allies go off towards Africa it's inefficient but then they can afford to so eh why not. But if Russia isn't safe then Africa might be a luxury Allies can't afford - it's bad to leave it in Axis hands but disastrous to divert from Russia so there you are.
And how you balance units for best effect is theater operations, but units aren't restricted to one theater only. Like say you have German fighters on Karelia; those threaten a lot of key drop zones for Allies (so are useful in the Atlantic theater even if only as a *threat*), can threaten territories in Europe (so are useful in the press-attack-against-Russia theater), and defend against Allied pressure by clogging up Allied push through Norway/Finland (so are useful in the German European defense theater)
Infantry/artillery for Russia is the standard. There's other lines of play, but you want inf/art for cheap attack to threaten the Germans off. You go pure infantry, you can't threaten Germany. Germany advances and holds territory, you can't threaten that territory because Russia has no offense. And the problem is Russia can't just play big stack defense all day. Germany secures Ukraine then West Russia and Caucasus are threatened. If you defend West Russia then Germany takes and holds Caucasus, then Russia is threatened and West Russia has to be abandoned. Russia gets pushed back and choked out. If you go inf/art instead though, if Germany gets greedy then you can punch it in the nose. Eventually you should get pushed back, but it happens *later* than if you're just huddling in a corner waiting for your beating.
German bomber's just really useful. I mentioned above how German fighters can be used, German bombers aren't good on defense but have a bigger threat range which is even more of a pain to deal with.
No the idea isn't to throw "massive forces into Ukraine no matter what". There's a bunch of options. You can hit Ukraine and if you're barely winning then you trade Russian tanks for a shot at German air, which can accelerate the UK/US timing in Atlantic. If you're winning by a lot and blew up most of the Germans you can retreat to Caucasus. So think about it. If you capture Ukraine then you block what is it, two German tanks from blitzing through to attack Caucasus? So you land two Russian fighters on Caucasus, build four units there, then there's the Kazakh infantry if you're really nervous, seven units plus possibly AA gun or two (though I wouldn't recommend it probably) to hold Caucasus against German attacking forces of battleship bombard, infantry, tank, and two fighters was it? Yeahhh not great for Germany. And if you don't capture Ukraine, if you just beat Ukraine up a lot, Germany can hit Caucasus with tanks from Europe, sure, but seven units with fighter backing still isn't that easy to deal with. And if you don't capture Ukraine and beat up Ukraine but *retreated* then you can have maybe 10-11 units on Caucasus, which what, Germany's going to trade in its entire air force and forego attacking the UK battleship/destroyer/transport? That sounds pretty good.
You defend the Caucasus by hitting Ukraine because there just aren't enough cheap German units left on Ukraine to leave Germany with a lot of good attack options in some cases.
And yeah, if dice go bad then Germany can break up West Russia and that's a disaster, or if you defend Caucasus but fail then that's ugly too. But odds are that *probably* won't happen. And again, West Russia only has its drawbacks too. So it's not that there's a really safe line of play for Russia at all anyways.
KJF in 1942 Online is crock imo. If allied carriers were implemented (they're announced to be implemented later) then at least you could stick UK fighters on US carriers, get a faster timeline on a push in the Pacific. But if not, what? You want to stack Buryatia with 6 infantry and a fighter, Japan can *still* smack that down with high odds then there's the entire eastern front open. And if Russia flies fighters to Buryatia, that changes the opening in Europe. And if you fight for control of Asia, you're mostly fighting over 1 IPC territories and walking right into the face of Japan's logistics which is really wonderful for Axis; you stretch out Russia's logistics and shorten Japan's it's like a dream.
I mean yeah when allied carriers get implemented that'll be fun, but for now? Ugh.
There's a lot to the basic German push, then there's variations. Try to figure your own take on it for a while.
A lot of choices in Axis and Allies are fake choices.
Look yeah? Back to basics. Do you want to trade 10 IPC fighters for 3 IPC infantry? No? What do you need to cut your costs? Infantry. How do you get that infantry on? Transports. How do you protect the transports? Escorts. Basics.
Then the application. You look at the map, what can you do with UK transports? Hit any of various territories that Germany can't hope to defend. Germany can defend some, but not all, and whatever Germany defends with can't really press on Russia so much. So there's that. UK transports let you combine cost efficiency of infantry soaking casualties with logistic advantage.
But that's only the ideal. If you can't afford to wait then you have to do fighter reinforcements or desperation strat bombing or things. But you try to rely only on cheap tricks like that and eventually you get pushed out. Eventually you have to go infantry. Well - unless your opponent loses their head or gets a major dice frack, but hey.
As for massive Japan advance, you know you can't fight it head on. So you have to figure what you get for doing other attacks, how that changes the timings, what you can afford to do.
Rethink those assumptions. I'd say USUALLY Japan pushes India, USUALLY Japan IC is no good, but there's rare exceptions. Even if those exceptions usually come down to an opponent screwing up, it does happen.
For the other stuff though, I'd switch out on all of them depending. US troops in China might be too costly to kill (considering other gains and other uses for Japan's air), sailing to collect is a matter of timing, ignoring Australia is right *at first* but you shouldn't overlook any opportunity to choke out UK income, etc. etc.
You want carriers to provide defensive clout and because fighters are flexible. You get a huge destroyer navy and then what? You control the local waters maybe (if that), then they just float around uselessly. Fighters can be sent to hit ground targets, to defend ground territories, to threaten navy that's 3 spaces away. You do need destroyers against enemy subs and you need some fodder, but you don't just go pure destroyers, you always should think it through.
NW UK is often not good. It's E Canada to Finland/Norway, empties return; that's the transport route, because you don't need another escort to defend the second empty transport fleet at E Can for a while. You go NW UK then your E Can - UK shuttle fleet is in range of Axis air, so is your UK-Europe shuttle. I mean yeah, if your opponent messes up then sure NW UK or whatever, but if they don't, it shouldn't be that easy.
Morocco you shouldn't if you can help it. Look at the board. For Allies, Russian income is most important, then UK, then US. It's a matter of initial forces, production, location, logistics. US is the *last* ally that should get income whenever possible; unless the situation's absolutely critical you can even leave a territory in German hands for another turn or even two if it means UK or Russia get the income instead of US. For Axis it's German income then Japanese income.
==
Generally, remember. There's an order to things in Axis and Allies that comes from mathematics and optimization. There's some room for doing things like trying off-book plays to see if your opponent responds correctly, but normally it's all calculations - even if you don't want to bother with them (which is fine) or if you do them and decide to take a risk (also fine), anyways the calculations are still there. Think about what you're doing in an orderly way, starting from basic principles then working your way up.
What's right in one situation is wrong in another and vice versa. Like if Russia's collapsing fast, UK might want to build and send fighters as it doesn't have time to get transports and escorts up and running. You don't do that if you can help it as you want to get your logistics in Atlantic set up which means buying transports and escorts, but if you don't have the time that's how it is.
You could read other posts and get some idea of the Allied / Axis playbooks, but games don't follow playbooks. They may to a point, but then one player or another does something off-book, or there's even a minor variation in dice that results in timings changing or etc.
followup post in a bit
"huddling in a corner waiting for a beating" - this is less applicable to the OP, I know, as the OP plans to conserve Russian attack units by doing West Russia only. So they don't have to replace a chunk of artillery/tanks for Russia to have decent attack power. But the situation develops, and it does work out in the end to that.
What is it, I forget . . . something like G1 starts with something like 5 infantry to push on the front? And say it builds 13 units. So the "playbook" is something like G1 build inf, G2 build inf/art, G3 secure Karelia (if not already secured) and build tanks for a timing push if Allies neglected Atlantic pressure or infantry if Allies are ramping up in Atlantic. (if Allies neglected atl pressure for sure they're up to nasty stuff elsewhere so it's not that you go G3 tanks because "lol I have nothing better to do" you have to pressure or you'll lose).
Anyways probably what happens is the G1 built forces catch up to the front say at Ukr then what? Playbook is - nothing. Because Germany doesn't have enough to keep pressing to Cauc (if Germany sends a chunk to Caucasus everything dies at little cost to Russia, then Russia just repositions and Germany's forced back). Germany doesn't have enough to break the Russians on W Rus because Allied fighters are sitting there (and why not, if W Rus falls then Russian income gets choked off and that really sucks). So normally you have to wait for the G2 build to catch up, *then* you can pressure; you probably still can't break the W Rus stack, but you can stack Ukr enough that along with Japanese fighters Russia can't punish - then Russia has to choose between W Rus or Cauc (it'll lose one or the other); if it lets Cauc go then Germans grab it and Japan secures it (if UK was cut off at India which it shouldn't but eh, talking about the Axis ideal) then Germany's popping four units out a turn on Russia's doorstep which is nasty. And then there's other things going on.
But see what happens if Russia's attack is blunted. Really think about it. The problem with using G1 build to push Caucasus is if Russia has been doing inf/art builds there's just no way Germany can press in any kind of force; Russia just smacks the heck out of Germany if it tries. But if Russia's been bleeding out its attack units and mostly has unsupported infantry? Well then it's totally different. Because Russia's attack sucks, it can't tear down the Germans quickly enough, especially as Japanese fighters are supplementing the defense.
So if you go infantry heavy, then Russia collapses *quicker*. Because you see how that all works? Germany pushes, Japan reinforces, Germany holding one territory (Ukraine) means it threatens *two* Russian territories (W Russia and Caucasus), so to use a bad analogy (though illustrative) it's not simply that Russia needs to produce *one* infantry for defense it needs *two* infantry*, one for *each* of the territories Germany can attack.
So what's good about pushing pure infantry? Yeah, it's a trap, see? To be explicit, the position collapses faster, Germany secures a forward base faster, Russian income gets choked out faster, Germany puts another four whole units right on Russia's doorstep every turn faster. It's bad bad bad. Normally anyways.
And remember the attack-then-retreat option. What happens if Russia bleeds out all Germany's forward infantry then retreats and moves infantry up? Okay Germany, go ahead and commit your expensive tanks that you need for offense, defense, and threat range, Russia just kills them all then consolidates. Or okay Germany, wait for your infantry to catch up then we can do this all over again. Or okay Germany attack into Russia's reinforced position and die. Germany has better logistics than Japan but it's not like German units normally just pop out on top of Russia, it's a pain to get German stuff to where it's effective. And Russia isn't losing its expensive units; those retreated to safety, the lost Russian casualties were the Russian *infantry* - and the buy that turn was Russian infantry to replace losses.
You can move up Russian infantry to replace losses after attack-then-retreat, but Russian artillery/tanks not so much - those needed to be on the front lines to attack in the first place; if they're produced late and moving up late then they're doing nothing for the initial attack then doing cost-inefficient defense and only *afterwards* are they useful. So early inf/art, see? Not just early inf. And you only do pure inf probably if you're last ditch defender or planning to replace massive infantry losses following a big attack (which if you initiated the attack in the first place probably meant it''s probably worse for your opponent).
. . . and if you say yeah but if you go inf/art then your opponent doesn't push as hard? Well yeah that works too you know?
==
I'm not going into all the playbook and variations for all the major powers here. I have in other posts (though even there I don't think I've ever done a post with as much of the playbook as I know, even for any particular variation for a particular nation). Eh.
Well I covered Russia because you need to really. And UK . . . well, I suppose it's tricky and if you have the most questions here then yeah okay a BIT of elaboration.
UK in Egypt and India - back to what I wrote earlier. Of all the Allies Russian income is most important, then UK, then US. You do it in that order if you can at all help it. For the Axis it's Germany then Japan.
So think about it. Egypt - it doesn't matter if Germany takes it so much. What you really want to avoid is German tanks *living* on Egypt, then blitzing through Africa for fast German income. That's a problem. Germany leverages that income into best-logistics-against-Russia and then you get problems on top of problems.
India - Japan has suck logistics against Russia. When (not if) Japan grabs India, it doesn't *solve* its logistics issues against Russia, but it does improve things. Most annoying thing is Japan can use India for its logistics against Africa. You have a Japanese transport at India, can offload to Africa every turn. It's fast, it's responsive, that's why it's such an issue. If US wants to drop to Africa, the one-turn drop is to West Africa then it's footslog east, just no flexibility at all - contrast to Japan dropping to Egypt or wherever all over the place. So if Allies want local superiority of force they have to commit more and . . . right. More to it, I'll leave off here though.
Then there's other things, like Caucasus and Japan advance through China.
Okay. So - ROUGHLY - and remember this CHANGES depending on the position - you want to avoid German income in Africa. It's not GREAT if they get SOME African income but it's not a disaster if it's temporary. The UK infantry starting at Union of South Africa can be vital.
You want to prevent Japan from taking India AS LONG AS IT IS CONVENIENT FOR ALLIES TO DEFEND INDIA. Russia is higher priority. Russia falls, then Caucasus falls if it didn't already, then it's up to twelve units production from Russia/Caucasus pressing towards India plus whatever Japan has
Convenient - for UK at India you have to watch German progress at Caucasus and Japan's progress through China. Of course you're watching Burma too but whatever. Problem is, if Germans grab Caucasus in force *before* UK gets there in force it's probably too late for UK to do much. And for Japan pushing through China there can be a problem too. Particularly, the worst case scenario is having a huge chunk of UK units that came from India but you can't do anything with them. If Japan managed to stick a chunk of units on Kazakh before UK moves to Persia, then if UK moves to Persia *after* then Japan can whack UK out. And same for Germany at Caucasus.
. . . and that's a problem because even if Germany *does* blunt its attack on Moscow by bleeding out against UK at Persia, think about the situation. Roughly, it's like Axis lost very little to take out UK's stack, and Japan's in position to push Africa (or worse, maybe help Germany get a grip in Africa). So you can maybe get a situation where the Axis are just out-incoming Allies, and if the Allies can't break the game open at other points they just get throttled in the end.
==
Massive Japan navy arriving on first turn . . . where, exactly?
Look yeah, UK fleet. Either you do that chancy attack to Japan's East Indies fleet, or you push through Suez, or you hit Borneo and New Guinea, and/or you hit Kwangtung destroyer/transport. Or you do that fleet unification south.
East Indies attack I'm not a fan of. Maybe after allied carriers implemented but atm KJF is so trash imo.
Push through Suez depends. If you can sneak UK through you get pretty fast reinforcements to Atlantic. Which actually doesn't necessarily change the timings *that* much, but it does change UK's viable options. Well I won't get into that much here.
Borneo/New Guinea is kinda eh. The percentages can be all right, and it can be a chunk of income, but Japan should just recapture quick to cut off UK income. Then you're back where you started almost, except the forces you committed can't be recovered so - eh. But maybe you keep New Guinea, and if you get Borneo income for 1-2 turns that can help fund the Atlantic. But Japan can press India faster because you used India units to drop Borneo so - eh. Good points, bad points.
Kwangtung destroyer / transport - don't think it's just about 15 IPC. It's more like 22 IPC. You kill the destroyer and the transport - Japan won't need to replace the destroyer for a while if US doesn't push Pacific, but if Japan wants to go anywhere (push through Med whatever) it *will* need destroyers, plus it needs a destroyer anyways to protect against roaming US subs so - see? Transport, Japan always needs. But that's only 15 IPC? No, you add in another 6 IPC off Japan not being able to use that transport on J1 to transport units from Japan to Asia. Yes, you produce more units at Japan eventually, but it's a timing thing. Then you throw in another 1 IPC for residuals off Japan benefiting from more and earlier pressure. Which is maybe understating things but whatever. Anyways the destroyer/transport are huge. And there's this whole Japan building transports each turn fast Burma push line which is fun too.
Fleet unification south - there's a line where UK hits East Indies fleet but instead of running transports off just keeps them south out of range. From there they can threaten any number of fun territories, which means if J1 can't whack the UK transports, Japan has to be more conservative. Which is nice.
Right, and for the rest - if you don't use the UK fleet immediately, you run some around Africa and you send the rest around South America to push Atlantic. Assuming KGF. Once Japan grabs India (which it should), and/or around J3-4, Japanese air should be making its way to Europe to help secure German push against Russian counter if nothing else. That also gives Axis more options against Allied Atlantic shipping. So right around the time that happens is when those latecomers that went around Africa and South America start showing up. Pretty convenient.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25q9_q3ILow
And in this all, you're balancing greed with calculations. Like suppose you want to hit the Kwangtung destroyer/transport with cruiser/fighter - yeah you could just run away, right, with the cruiser, give the UK carrier a better chance to survive, but that's not very greedy. By doing that you give Japan a much better open. So probably you go for some greed; you run the carrier west and land fighter(s) and set the carrier to die first (if Japan attacks it may lose its precious fighters - though again defensive profiles come up short because you should be able to SEE attacker results but . . . .
For EUROPE (not "mainland", what does that mean) the generic is something like US1 destr/carrier buy, US2 move and buy fighter(s) and/or transport(s) (maybe to Morocco but maybe to East Canada), UK3 drops fleet southwest of UK, US3 moves to reinforce. And often you need a UK3 escort drop because Japan can easily have bomber(s) to hit on J3 before US reinforcements arrive, but sometimes not. Then UK4-6 latecomers arrive from around South America, Australia, Mediterranean or wherever maybe.
And if you can get it done somehow with a UK2 drop (it happens, sometimes Germany shifts fighters off to land in Europe to try to choke off Russian income) then you do that instead of course.
And don't forget to buy some ground on UK2 (if it's a UK3 fleet drop) because you need units to fill out those transports.
And that's why I wrote you don't buy tanks and fighters on UK1 at India. Because all this stuff you're building on UK isn't cheap. Look yeah, you delay UK transport drops in Europe a turn, that's like 6-8 units dead. Maybe they weren't "killed", they were just "never placed", but what's the difference between units that were never transported and units that were transported and got killed? In board position terms not much.
Yeah if you do tanks and fighters at India it's super flashy and kewwllll and stuff, and there's all sorts of applications. But it's really a cut-throat business in Atlantic, you really don't have the cash for it.
So that's where you start with the variations, maybe you think your opponent won't play right against an off-book, so you hit Borneo for the income and either go more chancy with no bombard, or use bombard and use carrier as fodder against Kwangtung destr/transport (still chancy),
Think about the exact application of strat bombing. And that doesn't mean "well imma strat bomb duh!" - it means what your opponent does, what you do, what your options are, what you can push your opponent to do - and not through some mystical BS "pressure" that some players like to say they use whatever, but through CALCULATED pressure.
Thing is, strat bombing sucks for UK. I think that's just how it is. If you're horribly desperate . . . maybe. But otherwise no.
The G1 build, the G2 build, the Japanese reinforcement. That's the crux of the problem. UK bombers start hitting - exactly when? If you're using UK1 strat bomb then you're forgoing other targets, particularly often the German transport (probably escorted by German battleship) in Med that threatens that horrible German income in Africa. UK2 probably there's still a juicy target somewhere because Axis can't consolidate all their stuff that early. So maybe UK3. And by that time, you're not even threatening the German front development. You're not stopping the Axis plans at all. You're doing some petty interference late in the game, maybe means Germany can produce an infantry instead of a tank, which is probably fine for Germany; they just use that infantry for defense and the rest of the budget still goes to tanks. And then what? Is UK building transports to put on cost-efficient pressure? No, if it's spending on bombers. Does UK have some sort of great threat range with bombers? No, what's it going to hit, an infantry stack? (Clearly not.)
Now yeah, if Germany broke Russia's stack on G1 and is swarming in for the kill - then maybe it's UK fighters to Iceland to route to Russia later, maybe it's strat bombing, because you're trying to just stop a blowout, and *then* if you're stopping a single tank out of all the tanks Germany's pushing out to rush into the breach then maybe that helps somewhere. So there's times to really push UK air power. But if you don't *have* to push UK air power you probably shouldn't in most games.
Or maybe Germany goes surface navy, who knows. Different games, different situations. But you see where UK air power isn't good against conventional German ground push.