@Cmdr:
OK. This is getting old. You keep making baseless assuptions about stuff without detailing how they come about. Please explain how the UK is taking the East Indies and the Philippines without getting smashed by a Japanese fleet that is 3 times larger than the one UK has in the area.
Borneo falls on UK 1 or UK 3 depending on which flavor of KJF you go for.
Japan ignores the British fleet because the Americans are being a pest. It’s either attack England or attack America and America’s the one building more fleet every round out numbering you.
If Borneo falls on UK 3, then E. Indies falls on UK 2 and Philippines on UK 4.
Don’t see it happening. Nope, nope, nope. Japan has more than enough fleet to chase the UK out of the Pacific for many turns. And if UK takes Borneo on UK1, they will have nothing left after Japan stomps them on J1.
For the record, if the UK tries to preserve their fleet on UK1, I’m not going to extend Japan’s fleet beyond my abilities to defend against a backdoor attack by them. You might get one of those islands, but you aren’t going to get all of them. The japanese can position their fleet to cover those islands and still keep an eye on the US. As long as the US can’t overwhelm the Japanese navy, putting the Japanese fleet in sz50 will cover all of their islands and keep the US from advancing until they have a much larger fleet than they start with.
And also remember this…
UK fleet within range of the Asian coast means 6 FIG, 1 BOM in addition to the Imperial Navy for the attack on UK’s mini fleet.
And a drain on Japanese resources allowing American to pummel Japan to death without loss.
Okay, with minimal losses.
You are forced to chose, hit the American fleet and keep it from being a monster, or chase the pissant fleet of the British allowing American to push into your heartland and attack you with impunity.
Well first, the US will need at least 2 turns to become the monster you speak of and with the IC built in Sink on US 1 maybe even 3 turns.
Second, and most importantly, Japan doesn’t chase fleets in a KJF. It’s fleet is for defense of it’s territories and interdiction of the Allied fleets. It only attacks if the Allies leave it a juicy target within range. The lion doesn’t move. It just sits and waits. The prey will come to it.
Japan is IMMEDIATE reinforce with builds
USA is 1-2 turns delayed reinforcement from builds
UK is NO reinforcement.
Okay, so if Japan is IMMEDIATE reinforcement, then you are NOT chasing down the British fleet and thus they have free reign.
Can’t have it both ways Switch. You either have to chase them down and thus split your navy allowing America to move in and assume the defense posture off Japan OR you maintain a defense and lose some islands to the sniping of England. Compounded with the fact you have stated you are building fleet for reinforcements meaning you have nothing new going into Asia meaning you have lost 9 IPC right there. Any landings you might do are going into Buryatia, not exactly prime realestate, if you ask me.
The point is that Japan doesn’t chase the UK. If you think the UK fleet is going to take one of the Japanese islands that are within range(read: every single one) of the Japanese fleet then you will be trading the UK fleet for the income of 1 island for 1 turn. Maybe 2. So the only thing the Allies get is that the Japanese fleet is out of position for a turn and the US fleet can go to the Solomans without being threatened by Japan. But, the closer they get to Japan the further away from their reinforcements they are and the more Japanese units they bring into range.
No, the point is Japan is cowering in SZ 60 trying not to become lunch for America, according to Switch’s post.
That means England’s taking E. Indies, out of range of SZ 60 and New Guinea. By then America will have plenty of boats to protect England as they take Borneo and Philippines and Okinawa.
Since you arn’t going to chase them down, that means they are immune to Japan. :)
And if you do chase them down, America slides into SZ 60/61 ending all future purchases and forcing you to attack America or give up the Pacific.
I am so glad you misread my post.
I NEVER said that Japan was cowering in SZ60.
I said they could REINFORCE SZ60 immediately, while UK was a suicide fleet, and USA was slow to reinforce.
And, for the record, I don’t do the Ukraine attack with Russia anymore. Too risky. I’m throwing away 3 tanks, 1 artillery and 3 infantry to get 3 infantry, 1 armor, 1 fighter and 1 artillery. 28 IPC from Russia and 75% of their starting tanks for 28 IPC from Germany and 1 of their 6 fighters. That battle can go horribly wrong (and for me usually does) resulting in maybe not taking it or only having 1 tank left to defend. Though I’ve seen it go horribly wrong for Germany, is that really a risk Russia wants to take on in the first round of the game?
Actually I now think the Ukraine attack is the preferable option. You do not get many opportunities to knock out that amount of German offensive gear, so take the risk. It’s not much of a risk, like switch said average of 3 tanks survive it. It is a risk you want to take on the first round because the averages don’t support your conclusion that it goes horribly wrong.
@Cmdr:
And a drain on Japanese resources allowing American to pummel Japan to death without loss.
Okay, with minimal losses.
I LOVE how your brain works!
US can take Japan with only minimal losses.
:? :? :? :? :? :? :? :? :? :? :? :? :? :? :? :? :?
Oh and did I say :? ?
@ncscswitch:
I am so glad you misread my post.
I NEVER said that Japan was cowering in SZ60.
I said they could REINFORCE SZ60 immediately, while UK was a suicide fleet, and USA was slow to reinforce.
So you admit it was a strawman.
I could easily say that America could reinforce their fleet immediately too, in SZ 55 or SZ 54.
What’s your point? Other then trying to tell me you are both defending Japan and threatening America’s fleet and moving to sink England’s fleet. Cause you just cannot have the same ships in three different sea zones and you’d have too do that to get everything you say you want to do done.
Just face it. If you attack the English fleet, America can exploit Japan. If you attack the American fleet, England can exploit Japan. If you attack nothing then BOTH America and England can exploit you. If you attack BOTH, then you’ll decimate your fleet nine times over and be unable to recover allowing America to exploit you.
No matter what you choose, you’re going to get exploited. I have yet to see Japan defend successfully against a concerted KJF. The only defense that’s worked is a lucky and very aggressive Germany. And sometimes, that doesn’t work out too well either.
:-o
Jennifer,
Are you proposing that the allies should always try the KJF then?
As it is a better strategy than KGF because it would be easier, or is it just quicker, because Japan is weaker than Germany?
And anybody,
What can the Axis do to offset the evil plans of the Allies trying the KJF strategy?
:roll:
@Crazy:
:-o
Jennifer,
Are you proposing that the allies should always try the KJF then?
As it is a better strategy than KGF because it would be easier, or is it just quicker, because Japan is weaker than Germany?And anybody,
What can the Axis do to offset the evil plans of the Allies trying the KJF strategy?
:roll:
ooh ooh I know d. take London. final answer.
congratulations you just won a million dollers. ( jumps up and down then breaks dance on the table.)
@Crazy:
:-o
Jennifer,
Are you proposing that the allies should always try the KJF then?
As it is a better strategy than KGF because it would be easier, or is it just quicker, because Japan is weaker than Germany?And anybody,
What can the Axis do to offset the evil plans of the Allies trying the KJF strategy?
:roll:
No. If Russia did EXTREMELY WELL or Germany did EXTREMELY BAD it makes no sense to do a KJF. Also, beginners should always do KGF because it’s almost idiot proof, as in there really is no new strategy to be developed, just follow the formula and hope for good dice so you can win. KJF requires the players on both sides to think, which is why it is a good move against a veteran. Most veterans are used to KGF and do not really know how to handle a KJF scenario.
What can the axis do to stop KJF? Nothing. You’re only hope is to make a dash for Moscow and hope the German war machine is able to take out the Russians before Japan is reduced to an island. (KJF almost always goes until Tokyo is the only territory left, it’s just more cost efficient to stop at that point and shift to KGF.)
Taking London, as someone jokingly mentioned, is not really an option for Germany. The Germans cannot afford to build ANY ships if the Allies are going KJF. They cannot afford to let the Russians breathe, even for one turn. England, should of course focus on reclaiming Africa and manning the IC in India, grabbing islands as long as Japan lets their fleet live, but that fleet should never move past SZ 47/50 either north nor east. The reason is that you want the Japanese to move South and West which is away from Japan and America. If played correctly, you can have the Japanese fleet 2 turns from Japan, this allows America to not only park there, but get reinforcements there before you can attack them!
Japan, of course, cannot permit that which means they’ll either send their air force to you, killing off their planes, or allow you to grab some high profile targets in SZ 37, 48 and 47. 49 is a risk that should be held off until America is in SZ 51, 60 or 50.
:roll:
Well, we can always count on Cyan for some comedy relief :-D.
I actually lost London once, but the good old USA got it back and the my Allies eventually won the game!
Germany lost more in units cost than both my Allies casualties and the captured IPC combined! A win-win situation for me.
:-o
@Crazy:
:roll:
Well, we can always count on Cyan for some comedy relief :-D.
I actually lost London once, but the good old USA got it back and the my Allies eventually won the game!
Germany lost more in units cost than both my Allies casualties and the captured IPC combined! A win-win situation for me.
:-o
depending on how much the UK and america divert into Asia, i think it would be very viable for you to buy 5 trns one turn and then sea lion the next. especially if still have your navy/ bought some on G1.
@Crazy:
:roll:
Well, we can always count on Cyan for some comedy relief :-D.
I actually lost London once, but the good old USA got it back and the my Allies eventually won the game!
Germany lost more in units cost than both my Allies casualties and the captured IPC combined! A win-win situation for me.
:-o
My first game on these forums was against Darth Maximus. I lost BERLIN somewhere around round 5 or something due to being asleep or something, and I came back to win that game too.
Also, beginners should always do KGF because it’s almost idiot proof, as in there really is no new strategy to be developed, just follow the formula and hope for good dice so you can win. KJF requires the players on both sides to think, which is why it is a good move against a veteran. Most veterans are used to KGF and do not really know how to handle a KJF scenario.
Actually, KJF doesn’t require much brainpower either. That’s how most of the older tournaments used to run, with an IC in India and Sinkiang. These strategies kind of cycle in and out. First it was KJF, then it’s now KGF, now KJF is growing popular again as people get bored. It’s kind of like first you start with a carrier in the Baltic, then you cycle to no navy, then you cycle back to carrier. That’s part of the beauty of this game, that in spite of its mathematical core, there still are options and people aren’t completely convinced of which is the best. People started off as KJFers, then KGFers undid it, and now KJFers are trying to undo that again.
And I have to add, pretty much all the KJF techniques were already developed at least a couple of years back, as well. There’s not much new that I’ve seen discussed around here, it’s just people who think they’re special when they rediscover the wheel. Fighter to Solomons then Pearl - very old. US counter to Pearl - very old. Fighter/carrier vs Japan - very old. Linking the UK navy - very old. Big stack in Buryatia - very old. I don’t mind discussing the specific variations of these strategies, such as Darth’s going to the Pacific late instead of early, or adding extra carriers to the Baltic, but there’s no reason to think you’re special just because you do KJF. :roll:
Even so-called “no new strategy to be developed” in KGF isn’t as true as it looks, either. There are many variations within the KGF, and I wouldn’t assume that everyone knows the “best” counters to each. Do you go strongly in Africa, or operate the northern shuck shuck? Do you go after Japan after you take Berlin, or simply after you contain Germany? How do you deal with the German navy efficiently if it becomes menacing? When do you decide to push into Ukraine, if at all? A 3x3 with extra planes for the US, or 4x4 with little extra planes? Overbuild transports with UK? Build fighter(s) with Russia? W. Russia/Ukraine, or W. Russia/Belo, or the single attack as I’ve seen Darth do?
I don’t really see the game as locked down into two main approaches. Whether it’s KJF or KGF, I see that in every single turn there is a wide range of choices to be made - what to build, where to attack, what to defend and how strongly etc. Do you block, blitz, trade, strafe, take in force, go north into Kar or south into Ukr, how many TRNs / Fighters / Armor do you build, or just Inf, do you build an IC
I guess what I’m saying is that I find there is so much to think about on the tactical level that I don’t really care if every game I play is pretty similar in terms of overall strategy. For me, the game is really won and lost in the tactics - who sacrifices more inf in the name of taking territory? Who loses / kills more exposed tanks / fighters / transports? Whose forces have the most mobility? Who achieves local force superiority where it counts? Who is dictating the other player’s choices?
In chess, there is only one goal - KKF (kill the King first), but an infinite variety of plays that will get you there.
