I beat it in 2

Very start of video - Your avatar looks familiar. Are you TMIT from CivFanatics?

Do you still play A&A?

A good Japan player can build the factory in East Indies and take India on Turn 3, every time. The strategy has Japan's fleet consolidated. So if USA chases and goes for the Factory they are always outnumbered and lose. If they go for Tokyo then Japan builds infantry and Fighters there to counter the 1 transport USA brings. And after Japan takes India on turn 3 they take their fleet and swing back to Tokyo or wherever the smaller USA fleet is, while building ships as needed to maintain the naval advantage with the ground forces in Asia pushing towards Russia.

Log gripe if that he spoke KGF KJF so fast each time it was hard to know which he was saying.

1st time seeing your channel. Great stuff!

Like everything, it comes down to "it depends". In one example, if Germany is buying a Bomber, Fighter, and 2 Tanks, I consider that an easy Allies victory. And if you use the (IMHO a crappy variant) Larry Harris Gencon 3.0 variant, then that's just more fuel to the fire. I mean the game is really geared towards for the Allies to win, so whether it's KJF or KGF, doesn't really matter as you can go 3v1 or 2.5(ish)v1 in any scenario. Axis has to play well, get some good rolls, and hope the Allies make a mistake or two. The Allies can pretty much play average and win.

Nice video! Not sure if you read this comment as it's been a while, but I stumbled upon a bunch of Axis and Allies videos and very interesting game. Think you'll get back into it any time soon?

Very informative. Nice walk through of your strategy and implementation.

Did he call Wake Island "wah-kay?"

Great Video I really appreciate the play by play. I love this game starting playing it as a kid 40 years ago. Now I'm 48 and I play this and Iron Blitz. And The Annual Board game battle with my brothers every year.

This guy might be better than baron von games

I tried this opener a few times against the AI, and it seems like you need a perfect roll to pull it off (not wiping W. Russia, only losing 0-1 inf, beating the german cruiser while also not losing a fighter, taking Finland cleanish), while simultaneously counting on the germans to either not go for Moscow or to roll poorly and lose that battle. Even then they can still wipe you in Karelia most of the time. The extra 3 income for Russia is super appealing, but I feel like the game could have easily ended in 2 rounds had any of those battles not gone his way. Super eye-opening though.

what battle calculator do you use that you can see an entire outcome curve

TTG! I hope all is well man. Any plans to come back for season 8? Miss your vids dude! Cheers

I think the main strategic mistake was not building another complex (eg kwantung or East indies) around r10....you had the income to use the extra production but chose to build fighters and tanks instead...

interesting that he could have killed sea zone 10 again with 4 bombers in alaska....leaving US with 2 transports...ipc trade is high profit (48 ipc for 69 ipc), plus us troops are stuck in US....could have moved back to Asia...might have been worth 1 or 2 extra rounds before resigning....

I think the key aspect of battlescotch's kjf strategy that makes it work well is that it initially focuses on grabbing as much of Japan's land as possible early on - this gives an income boost to russia in r2/r3 that has a similar effect to US reinforcements arriving in us2/us3 for a more standard kgf. it also destroys/delays Japanese future navy as they lose income...Many kjf that I've played against don't do this - and it makes it so much easier to defend against the US navy as the income is similar. Also, buying 8 inf in r1 allows russia to send 2/3 extra units west compared to a standard kgf build of 4inf+2tanks. The other aspect is that by allowing the german battleship to survive generally means 2 less units each turn not going to russia + German units are being traded with British units...which is what you want for kjf

Hey bud, great game. You’re much better than I am, but why on G6 you didn’t go for the kill on Atlantic UK fleet. If you destroyed them, Berlin wouldn’t have to be defended and you could have been very aggressive with your build. Thanks again for the content and I really hope you post more in the future!

41:50 glad to see other ppl make assinine mistakes too. For me playing this on a small screen, and being new to this version and being naturally mistake prone... It's been a shit show.

Can we all agree that "Diplomatic Solutions" is a pretty good screen name for a war game?

Random question: if u have the game on both Steam and Android, can you start the game on Steam and then when it's your turn again play on you phone? I know the game is cross platform, not sure about accounts. Thanks!

(1) Why was the US fleet stack up in the Solomons? Shouldn't it be at Wake? You can still threaten or take the Philippines from Wake, plus you'll threaten Japan. All through round 5 he had jack shit on Japan. Simply forcing land or naval units there really screws with his game. What's the point of factories in the south if you cannot afford to build the units from them to throw against India??? -- (2) Also, I usually want to see UK with 7 fighters in India with 7 infantry rather than a bunch of land units and fighters doing jack squat in the Britain. 7 fighters allow you to trade Burma efficiently; the only thing Japan is ever going to trade for is cheap infantry. 7 fighters can be immediately flown to Moscow, West Russia, Caucasus or wherever Russia needs them. Once India seems a lost cause, the entire India Stack will move to Caucasus in 2 turns. 7 fighters also mean the Japan generally cannot afford the split his fleet or UK can sink poorly escorted transports even while US Navy units pile on the pressure. He'll have ZERO choice but to turtle up in Japan and use whatever is already on the mainland towards Russia in a long 3 turn march, while those southern factories become useless and exposed and India is permanently UK territory. -- (3) Another thing is that with 7 fighters in India and the US pushing naval units into the Pacific every turn, is that it completely neutralizes Japan's ability to shuffle land units from Japan or anywhere. because those transports will need to hunker up with a consolidated fleet or make one shuffle and die. That takes 14 to 28 IPCs worth of transports out of the game even if you do not immediately kill them. If there is a factory in Manchuria capturing that and neutralizing the Japanese fleet is basically game over. -- The only play really against the above is to see what's happening early -- like round 2 early -- abandon India and marching on Russia with everything Japan has and can shuffle before the pacific is lost around turn 5 and Japan becomes purely an infantry stack on Japan itself. If Japan is smart he will build planes more than naval units such that when can no longer delay the US domination of the Pacific, those 9 to 10 planes will be available for the Japanese attack on Russia itself with Germany.

Your German and Japanese logistics the round 13 were just awesome and really set the stage for this victory. The game looked bleak for you for so many rounds and then you pull off the winski. Hell yeah!

It sucks that you lost, but definitely my favorite battle to date. Two incredibly good players in a game of A&A chess. I loved it all.

TTG, I haven't viewed all your videos. Do you or will you provide commentary on UK T1 attacking sz 37?

Was there an opportunity here to build a German bomber to add to the allied north Atlantic fleet threat?

I've watched many TTG games here on KZbin. I'm only on round 3 here and this might be my favorite matchup so far.

56:00 yeah don’t do that lol. You’re hilarious bud

just on the sea zone 37 opening attack by uk - this has a 95% chance of success if you take carrier as first hit...these odds are better than 1 battlship vs 1 destroyer for german opener in sea zone 17 (around 92%)....this is due to use of fighter in egypt...without this fighter, the odds are 65%...hence why preserving that Egypt fighter is so important for a kjf!! so its almost a no brainer opening attack, even more so when you look at expected ipc loss...uk expects to lose 30 ipc (ie 1 carrier, 1 sub, 1 fighter), whereas Japan expects to lose 53 ipc (ie everything)

Take a drink every time this guy clears his throat DIRECTLY into the microphone

PLEASE NEVER PRONOUCE IT ARCH-ANGEL. its ark-angel

I have never seen Japan get crushed like that. Interesting game. Russian strategy is very unusual.

Any thoughts on taking out the US destroyer and 2 transports using the German bomber(s)? Bomber appears to have a safe landing and that would set the US back a turn, no?

If this is about just taking on the AI, this vid is nearly a waste of time but for complete noobs or currently bad players. PC AI is awful, and even when it makes the best choices out of the gate, I have defeated the AI AXIS playing against either AI player first (and with multiple strats against each) while in control of USA only, limiting myself to, literally and precisely, only 1/3 of the available pieces to make it harder. That being, Aircraft Careers, Transports, Infantry and Fighters (Planes). It is a good fight sometimes, but disappointing that it's nearly impossible for me to lose. EDIT: In my last game, I virtually ignored Japan, killing occasional pesky threats, and just sent help to Russia over the top, just to do it.

I just recently started playing and I have been studying some of these expert videos. I suspect that gameplay has evolved somewhat since this video was made. One really important concept is that of opportunity cost. Even though that Bomber vs two destroyers battle is slightly in your favor, you did not account of a massive hidden cost. Namely, if that bomber is destroyed then it cannot be used in future battles. The future value of a bomber is quite large and thus early loss of it is an extremely bad play. I don’t even use bombing raids in the first five turns or so. Though the net benefit is positive, having a bomber alive for a future battle (and forcing the opponent to account for it by moving less optimally or buying more defense) is even more valuable that the bombing raid.

How long does it take you to get through a game like this? Mine seem to take a week or more, if you're only getting 1 or 2 turns a day.

He spent SO MANY IPC on those fighters in India. Deterred you from attacking, yes, but he could have used those in West Russia/Moscow more effectively I think, though he did start shifting them to Moscow later on. In US7, I would have reinforced Hawaii to prevent/delay your VC attack. You take Moscow & Hawaii in a turn and the game ends.

Wish you would make more videos, there so entertaining

On J6 you could have, without any grief to sea zones around Japan (transport wise) pushed towards US fleet. US would have 2 options: pull back 2 spaces (correct, since you hadn't transports to threaten) or build up fleet upon which you pull back but force him to spend 12-16 or more IPCs into unimportant fleet side ;) Seeing US6 pushing fleet forward and getting obliterated, the non push worked even better in the long run... btw a transport move on Alaska was more than justified with 90% odds on win vs the fleet with no backup, in order to push him to build in Western US, which he did anways so even that was irrelevant :)

🤣 that 8:40 moment when you play not vs AI would make some keyboards flying out of the window

A question on G8 then J8 (1:54:30) if the German sub off Japan would have attacked and sunk a US blocking destroyer as a can opener move, and the UK didn't block the gap, you would have had between 88% and 94% chance to take down the whole US fleet at Alaska, leaving only 1+5 destroyers around, along the 3 transports too, netting a profit of cca 80 IPC's. The 88-94% difference is due to battle calculators not able to calculate leaving just enough carriers for surviving fighters, so 88% is with carriers after fighters while 94% is fighters outliving carriers (but they obviously crash so not fully possible). What would have happened if the UK sub would come in to close the gap? It wouldn't work, would it? You could designate the zone friendly? Or would you also have to leave the 3 destroyers behind as Japanese? Cause without the destroyers the battle odds drop to 68% which is not really viable in a winning situation... EDIT: LOL you just answered my question later on the same G8 non combat move! Guess I'd might be in top 10 then, just if I wouldn't make sooo many other simple mistakes :)

I think on J1 you should have sent the sub into New Guinea sea, because it could soak the 50/50 possible hit form the UK cruiser (instead of losing a plane). If it had survived, yes it would be vulnerable to the US destroyer but that destroyer then would be a viable target next round for a plane attack, and it defended only on 33/67 which is much less a chance to lose the plane. US could also be lured into full deployment of the southern fleet to kill 1 sub, which would lead to its separate destruction thus allowing Pearl min or even max on J2 which would be even worse for US Also, by G2 and seeing a KJF (with minor Atlantic hassle) why do you go German fighter instead of German bomber? You are not expecting hard German defense (and you've got 6 fighters) while the bomber targets transports in a much wider range, and also is very suited for the offense Germany must do (since no KGF)

You could do with a factory in South Africa 🇿🇦

For this strategy you need a Soviet player who resists czr if for the as in the part where I am is almost destroyed he is concentrated in Finland with what remains armed. Is English alliance us going in a few turns to destroy the Japanese it will be a battle Germany us England

At 9:05, instead of making a special calculation in your calculator or excel table, you COULD just look more carefully in the difference in "IPC value" between the attacker and defender, where you would see it is (for this battle) exactly 14,3-5,2=9,1, which you had gotten in your needless calculation (you got 9,14 rounded to 9,1)....

At 2:10, with all the troops stacked in Karelia and 41 IPC's for Germany (unfortunately not 42, which ofc is the magic number), you could have built 1 aircraft carrier and 4 transports in the Baltic sea? With only 1 UK bomber in range the 2 fighters would be sufficient enough to prevent sinking of that fleet, and along with the Morocco 1 transport you'd have 5 inf and 5 arty/tanks, along with your 1 bomber and 5-6 fighters which is even more troublesome for UK... possible unexpected UK wipeout? Calculation ofc needed as this would prevent a USSR takeover for many turns... But if successful in a KJF maybe even more worthy than a possible 3 turns ahead USSR wipeout?

I really enjoy these videos

Where is the conclusion!!?!?!

9 straight hits (from both sides) to round out that sea battle at 47:00. Love the sea fights cause they're just total IPC carnage.