KJF etc.

[trihero]

That’s fine by me, 18 IPCs loss instead of 16.

If running the Baltic is boneheaded, then sitting it must be even more so since it is impotent as it sits there.

[Jennifer]

Sitting there tempts the British to attack it trading 35 IPC in aircraft (and reducing their build ability if they try to replace them) for worthless fleet.

And I lose 1 fighter, 1 transport with my attack.  You lose 2 Submarines, Transport, Destroyer.  Meanwhile, I have 2 transports, submarine, aircraft carrier and destroyer coming.  All I need is 1 transport to bring me back up to 4 so I can maximize my entire production limit.

Unless Germany’s willing to throw away fighters and bombers to reduce me to an Aircraft Carrier and Battleship in which case I have to build 2 transports and some fighters to recover.

[trihero]

Sitting there tempts the British to attack it trading 35 IPC in aircraft (and reducing their build ability if they try to replace them) for worthless fleet.

It wouldn’t tempt you or Switch, so you should by that standard. In which case this point is moot. It’s also just a bad point in general because you generally dont’ lose all 3 aircraft, at reasonable most is 2 aircraft since you can retreat. That’d be like saying W. Russia costs you 6 infantry on average since you’re looking at the minority statistic.

And I lose 1 fighter, 1 transport with my attack.  You lose 2 Submarines, Transport, Destroyer.  Meanwhile, I have 2 transports, submarine, aircraft carrier and destroyer coming.  All I need is 1 transport to bring me back up to 4 so I can maximize my entire production limit.

The US lost a transport too, and you probably abandoned the tank in Canada. Can you do better with a sitting Baltic fleet? I also just don’t know if the UK can wait that long to land in Europe.

[Guest]

Well, after getting RIPPED by the Baltic Fleet on UK2 in our Tournament Game, Bo and I still have 6 UK divisions in Norway, and 10 transportable US divisions in UK and North America.  We lost 3 UK FIGs while Germany lost only a SUB in a UK 2 AF strike on SZ5.

Yet, if you look at the map, the Allies still look pretty good overall :-D

http://aycu29.webshots.com/image/30028/2002057481917662235_rs.jpg

[trihero]

Part of it is because the Axis have terrible dice rolls, and part of it is that Japan appears to have taken some risks, which might have been warranted, I’m not sure because I didn’t study too closely.

I mean yuck, Ukraine held with 1 art 3 arm on R1? Then completely brutalizing a German strike force of 1 inf 3 arm + something else? Then Japan losing 6 inf to China and still not holding it? : (

You definitely did get diced there Switch, but the Axis has cold dice as well, which is massacring their land advance. If you didn’t get diced, it’d just be over faster O_O

[Jennifer]

Not everyone is as intelligent as Switch or as paranoid as me.

So I’d rather lose a fighter, keep the transport and at least be able to land something on UK 2 if Germany doesn’t attack then to find myself in a situation where Germany can shred my entire fleet (at the cost of an air force) and then be able to rebuild their air force cheaper then I can a fleet.

[Guest]

@trihero:

Then Japan losing 6 inf to China and still not holding it? : (

That one you cannot blame too much on luck.  It was an underpowered attack due to the need to use Japan FIGs elsewhere (which is a point I made in a couple of other threads:  one regarding UK fleet movements, and another where I state that giving the enemy too many places to fight means that dice ARE going to go south in at least one of them on average.

Engineering your enemy into a position where luck becomes a more significant factor in their results is an element of skill.  :-P

[Crazy Ivan]

:-o
  It looks to me like the Allies should win this one, barring bad die that is.
  :roll:

[Romulus]

@ncscswitch:

@trihero:

Then Japan losing 6 inf to China and still not holding it? : (

That one you cannot blame too much on luck.  It was an underpowered attack due to the need to use Japan FIGs elsewhere (which is a point I made in a couple of other threads:  one regarding UK fleet movements, and another where I state that giving the enemy too many places to fight means that dice ARE going to go south in at least one of them on average.

Engineering your enemy into a position where luck becomes a more significant factor in their results is an element of skill.   :-P

Knowing which are the more worthy attack and giving up elsewhere is a possible answer Swithc?
I mean, if I am forced by good enemy planning (or bad planning of mine) in a situation where I have too much attacks to do, the only viable think is to renounce to some of them?
Or there are other options according to you?

[Guest]

Giving up one or more attack is a viable answer… but has the repercussion of leaving an enemy in an advanced position, or an otherwise dead enemy alive, etc.

What does Japan skip in that scenario? 
They already skipped the remote chance at India (which tends to be only an opportunistic target on J1).
They already skipped Bury (a pretty common J1 target).
They already skipped SZ45 (leaving a SUB and TRN)
Do they skip China, leaving 4 USA INF and a FIG to stack in USA1?
Do they skip Pearl leaving the US Fleet free in the Pacific?
Do they skip SZ59 leaving TWO UK fleets that can unite in the central Pacific?

Seriously… Which of those 3 do you skip as Japan in order to not have your Asian INF reduced far more than normal, not have half of your fleet and AF killed, and not have a large UK fleet in the Central Pacific (around say Carolines, New Guinea, or Borneo) WITH TWO TRANSPORTS?

[Jennifer]

If you are gunna go KJF, why not consolidate in SZ 30 then take Borneo on UK 2?  4 Inf, Fig vs 2 Inf.  Coupled with an American build in SZ 55 and you should have Japan quaking in their boots.

If you kill the transport attack the Submarine, hit New Guinea and hit Borneo you do serious damage, but it’s not a huge deal.  Japan can easily liberate Borneo on J1 without changing their Round 1, and sink the SZ 59 fleet (BB, AC, Fig vs DD, AC) and sink the SZ 52 fleet (3 Fig, Bom, DD, SS should be enough) and hit China with 4-6 Infantry, 2 Fighters (depending on if Buryatia/India were abandoned.)

[Guest]

And there is the rub Jen…

That is NOT a KJF move, that is a SJF opening for a wholesale KGF.

[Jennifer]

Works for KJF, just not as well as the IC in India + SZ 30 fleet consolidation.

I know, I’ve worked just about every KJF angle in the game by this point, to the point, I think I could almost beat you with my KJF now, Switch.  It’d be a race with a little luck thrown in for joy between whether you could get Moscow with Germany alone, or I could crush Japan like a can at 30,000 fathoms below the sea.

[Romulus]

@ncscswitch:

That is NOT a KJF move, that is a SJF opening for a wholesale KGF.

I have tried something of similar. I am doubtful on the following, of this SJF-KGF startegy.
Do you thing that USA should go heavy on Germany and only after two or three turns focus on the Pacific for reinforcing the fleet and attack?
Or it is better to constantly build up some ships in the Pacific in order to keep the pressure on the Japanese?

[Jennifer]

I’ve found that America cannot effectively fight a war on two fronts.

Your best bet is to use your destroyer, 2 transports for raiding operations in the Atlantic and focus your attentions on the Pacific making yourself a complete nuisance.

Since England has an IC in India in an optimal KJF game, I recommend augmenting it with two ICs in Sinkiang and China.  That allows you to put 7 units right on the Japanese boarder, more then enough to push them off the mainland if they are matching your fleet builds and if they are not matching your American fleet builds, then you can move in faster and sink their fleet, cutting off reinforcements to their land based units while you mop up islands.

[Guest]

@Romulus:

@ncscswitch:

That is NOT a KJF move, that is a SJF opening for a wholesale KGF.

I have tried something of similar. I am doubtful on the following, of this SJF-KGF startegy.
Do you thing that USA should go heavy on Germany and only after two or three turns focus on the Pacific for reinforcing the fleet and attack?
Or it is better to constantly build up some ships in the Pacific in order to keep the pressure on the Japanese?

Actually, to date the US has abandoned the Pacific after the US1 Pearl Counter in the game I am playing.

[Jennifer]

Only because you don’t believe in KJF, Switch.

However, I have very rarely seen KJF end in an Allied loss.  When it does it’s because the allies were either niave of some of the more optimal plays or because they had some misfortune with the dice.  But I’ve never seen Japan successfully defend itself against a concerted Allied offensive on Japan with Allied player(s) that really knew what they were doing.

It’s probably possible.  But I’ve never seen it.  Japan, with 30 income, just cannot take out Russia and fight off England and America (72 Income).  Or just America at 42 Income.  They usually end up picking one or the other, defending their islands or defending the mainland.  And once that happens, it’s only a matter of time before they are reduced to Japan itself. (Which in effect is dead.  Can’t get your aircraft out to help Germany, can’t sink the American fleet.  I don’t care if you sit there until doomsday building 2 artillery a round, it’s over.)

[trihero]

Engineering your enemy into a position where luck becomes a more significant factor in their results is an element of skill.

Good point and well done in your game. I don’t think that Japan’s response was correct, so definitely you have more skill than the other team.

I think the best response to switch’s SJF is indeed to abandon an attack. I think it must be Pearl.

The reason why is that taking Pearl early requires a ton of equipment, and pretty much doesn’t allow you to build any transports safely. Let’s go over this:

The safe way to take out a reinforced Pearl, assuming you lost the sub in Solomons, is to hit it with everything within range - 3 fighters, 1 car, 1 dest, 1 bb, 1 tran, 1 bomb. The order of loss is bb, tran, bomb, fig, then past that you’re screwed because the Americans will attack. But it’s quite likey you won’t lose that many units, and it’s likely will instantly knock out Pearl in one strike. If you don’t, you will take between a total of 2-4 hits in which case you’re ok, you’ll still have a loaded car + bb + dest, which is unfavorable to the Americans (they will very likely not touch the Japanese BB).

Although Pearl is safe, that sucked up a ton of equipment. 2 units not landed in Asia, 3 figs out to sea instead of being able to defend, no ships to protect a tran build from Japan. (even in inner seazone the Russians have a fig that can strike from Bury)

China you can still attack with mass inf + 2 fighters, but the Kwang navy is down to attacking with bb/fig/car, might lose car/bb in a bad situation.

And now, UK/Russia can push in (might be able to prevent UK pushing in if you have 3 figs land in F. Indo), and you have no safe transports. Ugly…

My response would to ignore Pearl. Attack China with 7 inf 3 fighters 1 bomb, knock out Kwang navy with 2 car + 3 figs + bb. Land 1 inf 1 tank into Manchuria, land 6 fighters there. Guard inner seazone with the other bb, deploy 3 tran in inner seazone and 2 inf on Japan.

This exposes 2 Japanese weaknesses - now the Pearl navy is active (along with mini uk navy), and F. Indo is completely undefended. But we’re not in a terrible situation. Japanese losses have been minimal since now we’re pretty much consolidated. F. Indo is open, but it’s indefensible if the Allies try to hold it due to the 5’ish inf in China and 4 tran + 2 bb ready to overpower it. The Russian inf + fighter in Bury are stuck for the moment since there’s 1 inf 1 arm 6 figs in Manchuria; the Russians might be able to jilt a fighter but at cost of everything there (not worth it). Japan is slowed for sure, and maybe that is enough in itself, but the point I’m making here is a better response than the one used in switch’s game. Japan is pushing in slightly and should at no point be dipping below their starting income. (the axis really can’t afford to lose territory if they want to have a shot at winning)

When the Americans send their navy out, it will be annoying. They will take an island or even 2 or 3 with the UK interdicting with their tran/2 inf + the fighter off the American car, depending on where your navy needs to be to overpower the remaining Allied ground forces. But they need to spend some cash to make a lasting impression (due to most of the Japanese navy being quite active), which takes away from their ability to deal with Germany. The Japanese navy + airforce will make the Americans think twice about where they’re landing.

However, I have very rarely seen KJF end in an Allied loss.

Yea, KJF is stronger than it may look at first. There’s probably no conclusion after 10 rounds if played properly. Germany may have Moscow, but Japan will have 2 of their VCs taken away as well and most of their income.

[Jennifer]

Actually, I usually see Russia and England successfully keep Germany at bay in a KJF/SJF campaign.  Sure, Germany has Africa and Caucasus, but England has E. Indies, FIC, Borneo and New Guinea and USA has Philippines, Okinawa, Kwangtung and Manchuria.

But that’s just the way I see it and I only know about 5 people who know how to do a KJF successfully.  So my exposure isn’t very extensive.

Anyway, I disagree.  Pearl cannot be abandoned.  America is the greater Satan and must take priority then the lesser Satan (England.)  The English fleet, lacking the core of a battleship, can be slaughtered at your convenience.  Meanwhile a massive strike on Pearl can be done without loss, or with minimal losses and put direct threat on any American builds in SZ 55. (Actually, you COULD fire your two fighters off on SZ 20 and hope to sink the Battleship and Transport if they try to run as well.  You only have a 17% chance to win, but that’s pretty close to 1 in 5, might be worth it if you think it’s a KJF game.  AKA: This might be your best shot in a long time.)

Dunno.  I personally have NEVER attacked the SZ 20 fleet with 2 fighters from SZ 52.  But I have thought about it!

[trihero]

Anyway, I disagree.  Pearl cannot be abandoned.

What is your proposal then? Build a destroyer + 2 tran in the inner seazone of Japan? Still attack both China and the Kwang navy? You have 3 fighters to split between China/British fleet, and you will very likely allow both F. Indo and Manchuria to fall hard on round 2.