I will just say that there can be no Bombers or Aircraft Carriers with out advanced flight.
And I prefer to use “boat anchor” place of “cat”
KJF etc.
-
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 -
A KJF would take a long ass time actually. Just because Russia falls doesn’t mean Germany can end the game. By that time the Japanese are just building inf on their island waiting to die from US bb shots. And then what do you have? US now owns Japan and where would we go from there? I suppose Germany would start by pushing out to sea so the US can’t dump factories, then start trying to research destroyer bombardment and shell the UK out? O_o It’d be so weird to see the late stages after the capitals have fallen in a KJF; what’s the next step for US and Germany O_o?!
-
Back with a vengeance I see Wes…
-
It seems that KJF is an easy way to take Japan out of action.
I do not thing so.In my attempt to KJF, there always a resulting struggle with USA that cause a lot of losses and a slow results achieving.
Britain assistance against Japan is appointed to be decreasing with the passing of rounds. German advance in Africa, so decreasing British income, and Russia increased danger, enforce British attention to Europe and to Germany.Even firts turn all-infantry build is useful for Germany to counter KJF. Slow infantry start to move to URSS from G2 on, while new tanks are built to quickly join the assaulting infantry. I do not thing that spending money in TRN is a wise startegy for Germany. For me it is better to go all land units and assault Russia Head on.
-
Problem 1 with 2 IC Build for UK:
Operation Sea Lion becomes a very tasty opportunity for Germany. Just like Russia can turn her fighters back to Europe, so can Germany turn her fighters back on Asia. Meanwhile, Germany has 6 Fighters, Bomber, 2 Transports, Destroyer, 2 Submarines and a Battleship in Range of London. You’ve built nothing to stop her attack and have removed all the goodies for your defense. (2 fighters in particular.)
Solution? Build 5 Infantry, 1 IC. Put the IC in India. Russian tanks from Caucasus can easily defend India with your British Infantry.
Problem 2: You are worried about Africa!?!?!
Solution? American transports and destroyer coupled with British transports and Battleship land 8 units in Africa a round walking across to India in a train if need be.
Also, you can easily set up a nice British fleet in SZ 30 on UK 1 then take E. Indies on UK 2 followed by Borneo maybe. That’s 8 IPC and Africa is only worth (from UKs start up) 9 IPC. Those two islands, easily protected with massive British and American fleets almost make up all your losses in Africa and you’d need them anyway to reduce Japan to an island nation again.
-
But I already mentioned Sea Lion as a problem. Besides, Germany goes before UK, so UK gets the option to build 2 ICs when it’s feasible, not always.
Africa is a valid concern. The Germans could have a fairly big fleet because of the way I leave the Baltic alone, which would easily screw up a small shuck to Africa.
-
To be honest, I never saw the financial gain of attacking SZ 5 on UK 1 myself. I’m risking 3 aircraft to enemy fire (and they have a GOOD chance at getting all 3 of them) for a fleet that’s at most annoying, at best impotent.
That, and I’m much better suited to killing it on UK 2 if no carrier is present, UK 4 if one is.
Suggested Topics
