Well I like an American Pacific offensive more and more because I find that Japan cannot keep pace in the fleet wars and build up a land force to threaten Moscow at the same time. Either it loses the fleet battle (which means Japan will lose half its income) or it can only send a token force against the Russians. So I go Pacific whenever I can. But if USA starts with a disadvantage in the Pacific (this will be most games), it is not the best strategy. The best players will adapt their strategy to what is happening in the game.
KJF etc.
-
Amon Sul……you TOOK tokyo?! and then had it taken BACK!? what a crazy game. how did that happen.
-
To me it seems like UK+Russia is not enough to conquer Germany on their own.
Well the key phrase here is “conquer”
Russia and UK are not enough to conquer Germany <–— Agreed
BUT they are enough to hold Germany of Moscow until the Americans have (and uk to some extent) have smacked Japan down hard (taking all income islands and wiped them of the continent)
UK will use the extra income to boost itself vs Germany, USA will use extra income to buy more fighters/trns to use against Germany.
Personally i prefer KJF in my games because i know how bad ass Japan can be when they are given room to expand at will. (being primarily an axis player).
This strategy works well unless your facing a really offensive Germany that sends everything onto Russia all the time ignoring it´s own casualties, this may sound strange but thats really a problem if theres no USA coming in quick to save the day, but against a passive Germany it usually works depending on circumstances f course :wink:
-
@ncscswitch:
And then there is Japan pushing BACK from being kicked off the Asian Continent AND losing Borneo and East Indies, but getting back into the game to the point that they took Moscow…
Ah, that was a fun game :-D
i suppose you refer to our game
as i told in my post i played poor
and i ve played against one of the most skilled opponents on the board toothere is no ideal strategy, each strategy if played well can result in victory, each good strategy
-
Amon Sul……you TOOK tokyo?! and then had it taken BACK!? what a crazy game. how did that happen.
see for yourself
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=10149.0
and the thing was that i destroyed all the Japanese transports
so the only way that Tokyo return to Axis powers was that Germany does it, or Japan using the German traand Moscow could fall later beacuse Germans and Japanese had big forces but Sub Dude called it a good one and resigned
when you take Tokyo its almost no return, almost, but it can be done in some situations
-
I agree, KJF only becomes an option if Japan did poorly either strategically, bad luck or both.
It can be done otherwise, but with the more familiar Japan open and results of the board, it makes more sense to kill Germany off first.
If Japan has left a BB or AC or both too lightly defended at Pearl, and the British fleet is focused as I described, it’s a simple matter to take East Indies and sink 50% of the Japanese fleet in rapid order. Now it may make more sense to confine Japan to Tokyo before attacking Germany.
-
I agree, KJF only becomes an option if Japan did poorly either strategically, bad luck or both.
It can be done otherwise, but with the more familiar Japan open and results of the board, it makes more sense to kill Germany off first.
You just contradicted yourself. You said you can’t run KJF unless Japan did poorly or has bad luck, and then you turn around and say it can still be done…. (with a caveat)
MOST players will agree KGF is the better/easier allied game plan. There are some adament KJF players who will argue this fact. I am sort of on their side as a well executed KJF can be more effective than a KGF strategy.
I think you can do either one with the allies. You just need to be set-up properly with Russia to be effective… and here’s the key… WITHOUT tipping your hand R1 as to what you want to do as the allies.
I run a pretty vanilla Russia 1 that leaves both options available to me. I let Germany make the decision for me. I have several go/no go factors for the KJF plan or not: mainly Germanys buy (and placement) as well as how many forces are where.
-
I have several go/no go factors for the KJF plan or not: mainly Germanys buy (and placement) as well as how many forces are where.
Elaborate on this, please.
I will applaud thee if sufficient details are given. :-D
Or else . . . SMITE! :evil:
-
I have several go/no go factors for the KJF plan or not: mainly Germanys buy (and placement) as well as how many forces are where.
Elaborate on this, please.
I will applaud thee if sufficient details are given. :-D
Or else . . . SMITE! :evil:
LOL
Threatened with bad Karma to reveal strategic secrets!
-
Go / No go on KJF
Germanys buy:
Any naval in sz5, particularly transports. The only effective KJF that I know needs a UK complex in India UK1.
It’s tough to buy a complex and either go to africa/build some fleet in atlantic if Germany threatens London.
An all ground unit buy, particularly inf (which seems counter intuitive) gives the allies some time to get defenses into place for Russia as well as time on the ground for Russia. This is a Go indicator.
AES results.
An effective KGF gets the Jerrys out of Egypt UK1, hopefully to get the cash for themselves. Keeps German income down. Combine this with operation Torch and africa will be costly for Germany to pursue.
If there’s a sizeable number of German units in AES, I will look to do other things with the Indian Ocean UK fleet. This is a Go indicator.
Other European combats:
Did Germany attack West Russia or be more passive? If Germany is not pressing on Russia, there’s some time to be able to divert some Russians after the Japanese units. That might remain after J1 combats. Specifically, the units in China. If the Russians clean up 5-6 inf in china with 4 inf, tank and 2 ftrs of their own, and perhaps moves 6 inf into manchuria… deadly. But this is not possible if Germanys sitting strong in ukraine forcing the issue on Caucasus or other strong German moves …
Targets of German opportunity:
If there are some prime German units hanging out to dry (like a bomber sitting in a weakly defended western europe). I might forgo UK’s fighters from getting into the proper KJF position to take advantage of a german tatical error.
-
clap clap clap
-
MOST players will agree KGF is the better/easier allied game plan. There are some adament KJF players who will argue this fact.
adament, am i adament? :? :wink: :|
what is it?
-
@Amon:
MOST players will agree KGF is the better/easier allied game plan. There are some adament KJF players who will argue this fact.
adament, am i adament? :? :wink: :|
what is it?
opps. Typo.
Adamant
–adjective 1. utterly unyielding in attitude or opinion in spite of all appeals, urgings, etc. -
KGF is easy because everyone can do the infantry push mechanic. KJF is hard because it requires you to think about what you buy to get the right mix. Navy is expensive, infantry are cheap.
KJF can go for anything, but it’s a lot easier if Japan makes mistakes in J1 (or you have Colonial Garrison and Enigma Decoded for England.)
-
As a “Pioneer” of KJF here (thanks for compliment Jen), I can tell you the strategy can be effective against even the most skilled opponents.
Two particular games come to mind, one against Jen where we had huge opposing navies in SE Asia, Japan destroyed the allied fleet :cry: but ended up losing the game, and another game against Switch, where UK/Russian forces were trading Japan’s core Asian territories, I had him squeeling like a stuck pig! :-D :evil:
The thing I love about KJF is that it really tests your game skills, there is almost no room for error.
-
For either side. One set of bad dice as Japan and you’re finished. One set of bad dice with the allies and you’re finished.
-
@Emperor:
I had him squeeling like a stuck pig!
The thing I love about KJF is that it really tests your game skills, there is almost no room for error.
interesting…
agree, forces you to expand your views uppon the game, and to improve your gameplay a lot
-
KJF is intriguing. The Allies can actually create incredible pressure early on, which I don’t think Japan can handle efficiently. It comes down to Germany being clever and ramping up surprise transports to threaten the US and UK. I wouldn’t say to rely on KJF, but it is an interesting excursion.
Specifically, the way to create pressure is this:
Russia: your only attack will be West Russia. You will attack with 1 fighter, and all inf/art available, but all tanks will not participate nor will the other fighter. The other fighter flies to Buryatia, 2 tanks from Moscow go to Yakut, tank from Caucasus to Sinkiang, tank from Archangel to Novosibirsk, the fighter from W Russia goes to Yakut as well. Your builds will be mass infantry as you prepare for the German onslaught.
Note: at this point the Germans could say oh boy a KJF, I better make some transports and force a KGF. If the Germans prepare a perfect advance counter of a KJF, then go ahead and reverse directions with the Russians. You haven’t really lost any positioning, just move all your tanks/fighters back.
But if the Germans play more conservatively with a mass inf build, go buy 2 complexes with the UK. 1 goes down to S Africa tip, and the other goes to India. You will need the S Africa complex to easily contest Africa, which can quickly become a sore problem if you don’t do this. Fly your fighters from the UK to Moscow, and bomber to Sinkiang. Attack the Kwang transport with your Indian navy, but send the fighter to attack the Solomons sub along with the Aus sub, with the intent to land the fighter on Pearl Harbor’s carrier. Move infantry towards India.
When Japan’s turn comes along, they are under massive strain from all sides. They cannot possible address all avenues of attack. Attacking Pearl Harbor is probably unwise, especially if the Solomons sub is lost (happens 2/3 of the time). They would have to attack China or risk that becoming another super-hardpoint from all the reinforcements arriving there. And it would be also wise to get rid of the Kwangtung UK navy before it met up with the US. But that is all Japan can do safely, and it still presents some issues.
On US 1, they will immediately invade Solomon Islands. The Japanese will not be able to break off the spearhead here because many of their fighters are on land and also half of their fleet is off of Kwangtung. The US starts with a build of 1 car + 1 bb.
The Russians follow by mass invading Manchuria with 6 inf + 2 tanks, and counter attacking China with 2 tanks + 2 fighters if there’s ~3 inf or so, or at least beefing up sinkiang with 2 tanks.
The UK follows with a build of 3 tanks in India, and attacks New Guinea with the Australian transport + 2 inf + their fighter from the US carrier off of Solomons, then flies their 2 fighters from Moscow into Sinkiang.
When it comes back to Japan, they are in massive trouble again on all fronts. Where will they attack? Personally I’d say they’d be forced to deal with the 8 units parked in Manchuria. They can’t really attack anywhere else, actually. India is too strong as you haven’t positioned any units to help attack it, China is also too strong, and invading Buryatia is a fairly bad move since you only get that 1 IPC and are way out of position to defend your mainland territories. Merely reinforcing Kwang/F Indo will provoke a massive Russian/UK counterattack which you can’t handle. So you wipe out Manchuria with 4 tran of equips + mass fighters + 2 bb shots + bomber, great.
But now, again the Japanese navy is way out of position, they are in the inner seazone of Japan.
The US assaults East Indies with 2 inf + 1 fighter + 1 bb, and sends their turn 1 build along with the panama destroyer to the Solomons seazone. (build another bb)
The Russians at this point are probably spent. They can use their remaining 2 tanks to blitz a lightly defended area or just hold Sinkiang, and retreat the fighters.
The UK can now strongly assault F Indo, which hasn’t received any reinforcements in the first 2 turns. 5 inf + 3 tanks + 2 fighters + 1 bomber will take out anything sitting there. At the same time, they take out Borneo with 2 inf + 1 fighter.
The Japanese should be absolutely flustered at this point. They’re missing Borneo, East Indies, New Guinea, F Indo, and all they have to show for it is possible China. The Americans now have a solid naval force jaunting about (2 car, 2 bb, 1 dest, 1 tran, 1 sub, with 4 fighters), which means the imminent loss of the 3 IPC island. The Japanese can take F Indo back, but do you see how they’re being absolutely contained? Their first 3 turns they can’t even hold their starting territories, and now they’re losing islands as well. They might be able to scrounge up the money for another carrier, but the US navy is now unbeatable defensively and the slow addition of BB’s means they will soon strafe the Japanese fleet to death and then BB shot the infantry out (after making sure the Japanese income is as low as possible).
Of course, this isn’t to say that the Axis will lose. After all, Germany is off the hook nearly completely. A smart German player will quickly threaten a Sea Lion to negate the UK’s ability to use their 2 IC’s. Actually, the Germans can completely undo a KJF. But this is a fun theory that shows the Japanese are very very containable; they are not omnipotent in spite of their large starting navy + fighters, and in spite of there being no Allied factories within the proximity of Japan’s holdings.
-
I can agree to that allocating more against jap than in a straight kgf strat could work, but still don’t work as good
as pure kgf.
And by rnd 4-5, all powers must both gain and contain or else the opponent powers will win eventually.
To go all in pacific with UK, often means jap don’t do pearl. Then US can land in SFE.
I’ve seen some games where this seems to work, at least as good as US landing in Norway and threatening WE, or
algeria.
But with players on same level I never seen IC in India not taken by jap, or IC in sink also not taken by japs by rnd 3-4, 5 latest. I guess few players dare to risk more russian units against jap than they already have to, within the
kgf doctrine.
I’m convinced that UK IC in India would not work anyhow, but a different kjf could work, played by good players
that is. -
Taking the India IC has its own problems.
Turn 1
UK Builds IC, walks 1 inf over, fighters/bomber to Moscow
Japan Builds 3 transportsTurn 2
Uk Builds 3 tanks, walks 1 inf over, fighters/bomber to India
Japan lands 6 inf 1 art 1 arm into F IndoTurn 3
UK Builds 3 tanks, now has 5 inf 6 tank 3 fig 1 bomb 1 aa
Japan attacks with 6 inf 1 art 1 arm 6 fig 1 bomb 2 bb shots. A tricky battle.Now to be fair, both sides can have more troops. Japan can use infantry from the mainland, and the UK can have allied figs landing in India.
In either case, Japan has to commit a lot of forces to get that IC. And while they’re doing so, that little monster force from Russia walks behind them and chews up manchuria/kwang/findo, and china is back in US hands. Japan maybe can get India, but loses 9 IPCs of mainland in the process with no quick fix. It quickly becomes the US outproducing Japan at 2:1 which means they lose the naval battle soon.
-
Never seen Russia take jap tt’s with decent players.
Even if UK can hold India to rnd 4, G have 50, maybe more ipc.
That’s too tough for Russia to handle. And with Caucus colored grey, G will also threaten India…
The most imortant issue is not that India IC will fall to jap.
Other factors count more. But why is this doomed to fail for allies?The reason is obvious, to me.
In fact, I’m better at analyzing than playing :-D
Suggested Topics
