Yea, KAF is the sole reason people started building infantry in W. USA and walking to E. Canada. Slower assault into Europe, but Japan has no real ability to do anything to N. America.
KJF etc.
-
Basically it’s a request to force a more normalized result so no one gets outrageously good or bad dice in the first round. After round 1, players are more able to handle screwy dice here and there. But, let’s say, Russia attacks Belorussia and W. Russia and the Germans have 100% defense and the Russians have 0% accuracy on attack.
How well can you judge the strategy in that situation?
However, if you maintain low luck after wards, you run the risk of removing some variables of play. You can optimize every move, which is not how most battles are planned. I happen to know a lot of players, like myself, that won’t take a battle if only the Low Luck simulator says you’ll win with 1 ground unit left 100% of the time. Why? Because the swing is huge!
-
With low luck its nearly impossible to take London G1, even with trans bid in sz5.
Except with long range aircraft, that’s a different story.
And I don’t play tech, ever!
That is, about 30% to capture UK G1.
If Germany buy 5 trans on G1, then there’s a possibillity for sealion G2 if allies let this happen.
That’s gonna stop a KJF for sure.Sorry that you wouldn’t accept my challenge, and I challenged you first :wink:
With those rules you are playing with, anything can happen….
I would accept 7 bid, IC India UK1, low luck, all US production spent in pacific,
no German naval investment on my behalf,
I would beat you for sure 8-) -
@Cmdr:
Problem 4: I think you are really discounting the pressure the allies can bring to bear on Japan.
No I don’t, what I do believe is that this is a bad strat to win.
-
I would accept 7 bid, IC India UK1, low luck, all US production spent in pacific,
no German naval investment on my behalf,
I would beat you for sure 8-)Part of the problem with ‘preset conditions’ in a game is that G1 you know a KJF will happen, when I think it’s best for the allies to decide AFTER G1 which axis country to gang up on.
-
KJF must have something do with game rules, apart from low luck or dice.
VC’s, NA’s or tech, etc.
I believe there’s a good reason why I almost never see a KJF played in the lobby.
For some reasons, a KJF, or at least US taking Jap islands work better in the games you play
in this forum.
It must be, or else you wouldn’t have insisted of winning a lot of games using this strat. -
And yet, the number one player in the league seems to do mostly KJF games, at least of the ones I saw.
And yes, KJF has a lot to do with the rules. Like you cannot have the same unit attack two different territories in the same turn. :P And other arguments people use to discount KJF!
In reality, KGF seems easier because you can just pile up huge somes of infantry over 10-15 rounds and then push out. In reality, KJF is easier because you can force them off the mainland in 3 rounds and then out number their navy in 4 rounds (from beginning, not from pushing them off the mainland) resulting in a 5-7 round game with a Japan reduced to Japan only and Germany held to Ukraine, Belorussia and Karelia + Africa.
-
KJF can definitely work and is a real pain in the butt, HOWEVER, there are several things I do prior to commiting to a KJF. I would never go into a game saying “I’m playing a KJF”, nor would I say “I’m playing a KGF”.
I’ll NEVER commit to a KJF until after J1. I set up a very generic R1 and UK1 to allow me to either do either strat as the Allies.
I also don’t play a strict KJF, it is more of an annoyance and contain (cripple) Japan move mid game as they are preparing to hit Moscow.
I find it can be a real pain to actually take Berlin, and a good turtling play by Germany can extend the game long enough for a free Japan to run wild. So, I find it more effective to make sure I’ll be able to handle Germany with Russia and UK (so I wait until at least US 1 but usually US 3 is go time) and then go after Japan hard with the US.
Then I can play a nice boring game and wait out the Axis since I’ll have the economic lead and Germany can’t take Moscow while Japan is all but forced to spend dollar for dollar with the US or lose its big islands. Then the game will end with EI, Bor and Phil becoming green. Once Japan loses some of these big islands their will to continue usually vanishes.
Much easier then risking dice rolls on a 1-2 attack on a fortified Berlin with a monster stack of inf and arm and a 55+ ipc earning Japan sitting on Moscow’s doorstep waiting to pick up the pieces as the Allies throw away tons of material in trying to sack Berlin. -
Except, Japan isn’t forced to spend that kind of money because America has to attack Japan. That means for minimal investments Japan can counter. At least for a few rounds.
Though, it does have the annoying effect of forcing Japan to come back to home waters with it’s Northern Fleet. :/
-
The US doesn’t ever have to attack the Japanese fleet just make it sail back to Sz 60 (where it can’t effect Afr or the Med). Our current game is a bit different since I went sub crazy, but in general (with my US AC/ftr strat) the US can either force Japan into attacking the US fleet where now all those AC’s and ftrs get to roll 3’s and 4’s (and just to strafe off the trns will inflict massive losses on Japan) OR the US sits and eventually picks off the islands. The US can afford a sacrificial trn here an there if they pick up an island b/c Japan now has to sink that trn but can’t really reclaim the island without putting Sz 60 in jeopardy or splitting their fleet or putting it at risk (since no new ships could be placed in that island sz). Islands are a pain to reclaim regardless of what side you are, but if you are set up as the aggressor and drop 2 inf there as the US the likely hood of an immediate Japan recapture is small and the possibility of a US IC popping up grows which is very very very bad.
-
KJF can definitely work and is a real pain in the butt, HOWEVER, there are several things I do prior to commiting to a KJF. I would never go into a game saying “I’m playing a KJF”, nor would I say “I’m playing a KGF”.
I’ll NEVER commit to a KJF until after J1. I set up a very generic R1 and UK1 to allow me to either do either strat as the Allies.
I also don’t play a strict KJF, it is more of an annoyance and contain (cripple) Japan move mid game as they are preparing to hit Moscow.
I find it can be a real pain to actually take Berlin, and a good turtling play by Germany can extend the game long enough for a free Japan to run wild. So, I find it more effective to make sure I’ll be able to handle Germany with Russia and UK (so I wait until at least US 1 but usually US 3 is go time) and then go after Japan hard with the US.
Then I can play a nice boring game and wait out the Axis since I’ll have the economic lead and Germany can’t take Moscow while Japan is all but forced to spend dollar for dollar with the US or lose its big islands. Then the game will end with EI, Bor and Phil becoming green. Once Japan loses some of these big islands their will to continue usually vanishes.
Much easier then risking dice rolls on a 1-2 attack on a fortified Berlin with a monster stack of inf and arm and a 55+ ipc earning Japan sitting on Moscow’s doorstep waiting to pick up the pieces as the Allies throw away tons of material in trying to sack Berlin.…
OMG, that is EXACTLY what I do.
-
This mid game Pacific move is something I’ll just have to see for myself one day. It works against many if not all players that Darth has played, but I wonder :lol:
-
@Bean:
This mid game Pacific move is something I’ll just have to see for myself one day. It works against many if not all players that Darth has played, but I wonder :lol:
Containing Germany’s expansion is the first priority for the allies.
Once that is in place, the allies can shift main focus to Japan either on the ground in asia (usually via Russian units in conjunction with some spill over from UK/US units) or via a US navy in the Pacific.
-
I think the Allies can contain Germany and attack Japan. To be honest.
Germany has 1 transport to Africa and no direct land path. The Allies only need to exceed the German threat in Africa by 1 unit a round to over whelm them eventually and reclaim Africa. However, realistically, the Allies can easily send 8 units a round into Africa for 2 rounds and have plenty of forces to liberate and hold Africa until the combined air forces can sink the German fleet.
On the other side of the world, with some coordination and planning, minimal investments can contain Japan, optimal investments can destroy Japan. (Destroy as in reduce to an island. Taking Japan itself is usually too hard IMHO. Too much investment, too little return. Keep it an island nation, then send reinforcements to Russia.)
As for Russia, all they have to do is survive 7 rounds before withdrawing from Caucasus. And to help with that, they have 67% of England’s income to assist them. (Roughly 20 IPC since England’s going to need 10 IPC in India to flesh out the defense against Japan.)
-
I think I found a picture if you in bikini, so we don’t need to play a KJF game to decide if KJF is
better strat than KGF… :roll:
It would be fun to play against you anyway, but if you only play through forum or pbm then I won’t challenge
you again until you start playing realtime. -
I play real time through forum. :P
I don’t use TripleA. Dicey in there sucks big time and it’s overly cumbersome.
-
@Cmdr:
I play real time through forum. :P
I don’t use TripleA. Dicey in there sucks big time and it’s overly cumbersome.
omg libel
I use TripleA all the time. I luv TripleA. I want it to have my babies.
-
@Cmdr:
I play real time through forum. :P
I don’t use TripleA. Dicey in there sucks big time and it’s overly cumbersome.
omg libel
I use TripleA all the time. I luv TripleA. I want it to have my babies.
Fix it, then talk to me. It has a nice feature of turning the property the new owner’s color. But the map shows too little at a time and the dicey MEGA sucks. What is it, 90% effective AA Guns vs Bombers, or have they tamed it a bit?
-
@Cmdr:
@Cmdr:
I play real time through forum. :P
I don’t use TripleA. Dicey in there sucks big time and it’s overly cumbersome.
omg libel
I use TripleA all the time. I luv TripleA. I want it to have my babies.
Fix it, then talk to me. It has a nice feature of turning the property the new owner’s color. But the map shows too little at a time and the dicey MEGA sucks. What is it, 90% effective AA Guns vs Bombers, or have they tamed it a bit?
It only goes 90% against you, Jen.
That’s because it remembers you.
Dun dun dun.
-
:roll:
If you play LL on the ladder, and you attack with 6 or more attack points of aircraft, then it has been my experience that the AAA will get a hit! I agree with Jen that this is too predictable and should be addressed. Other than that the dicy works very well for me, especially playing the Low Luck version of the game.
I have yet to play on any other system, so I can not compare, but the TripleA ladder works well for me.
C.I. :roll: -
@Cmdr:
@Cmdr:
I play real time through forum. :P
I don’t use TripleA. Dicey in there sucks big time and it’s overly cumbersome.
omg libel
I use TripleA all the time. I luv TripleA. I want it to have my babies.
Fix it, then talk to me. It has a nice feature of turning the property the new owner’s color. But the map shows too little at a time and the dicey MEGA sucks. What is it, 90% effective AA Guns vs Bombers, or have they tamed it a bit?
It only goes 90% against you, Jen.
That’s because it remembers you.
Dun dun dun.
I’m not the only one who complains that the AA Guns in Triple A are too effective in normal play mode.
About this time last year someone had posted some hard numbers. Forget what the percentage was, but it was well above 50% of the time an attacking bomber on an SBR was shot down by the AA Gun.
Maybe they fixed it. I doubt it since it’s not a pay to play program and really has no dedicated development team to deal with these types of problems, but rather a hodge podge bunch of programmers working on code they want without regard to any other programmers code or how their code will screw up the other person’s code. (Much like other freeware programs.)
My opinion, of course. Maybe EA Games owns TripleA and put millions of dollars and thousands of man hours into it’s development. I don’t think so, but I can’t say for certain they didnt.
What matters is that I don’t trust the dicey. I trust the AA.org dicey and the frood.net dicey. AAMC is decent and FOE was really good. DAAK and TripleA seem to have coding errors in their diceys.
Suggested Topics
