Crazy George!

[Crazy Ivan]

: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

[cyan]

@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.

[frood]

@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.

[trihero]

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?

[frood]

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.

[Romulus]

I agree with Ender. Tactics and Logistics are fundamentals in every turn of A&A.

I think that the analogy with chess may be expanded.
We have only KGF and KJF as Allied strategy because we are “lazy” in making different descriptions of each flavour the KGF or KJF may come. I have still to see two identical KGFs. The objective is the same, Gemrnay first. The High Strategy is similar. But the concret realization is very different. Dice randomness creates great variety.

As in chess we should consider A&A in three phases: opening, mid-game, ending.
Only tring to classify the “possible” or “played” opening could show how many different KGFs exits. A complex taxonomy should be used to describe them.
Mid-game is really impossible to classify, like chess. It depends by innumerable factors, decisions, dice results etc.
Classification may be still used in describing ending moves, when the game is restricted to more canonic situation.
As in chess, i.e. King and Rook against King. You have principles, Kings opposition, Zugzwang etc., not a list of moves to do. In A&A we may have 1-2 punch against Moscow, which is a “operational plan” not a list of moves to perform.

Really I thing that in A&A exists two highest level strategies KAL (Kill ALlies) for the Axis and KAX (Kill AXis) for the Allies.
How and when that happens are things that change in every game. High Strategy has to be translated in theater Strategy, Economic, Logistic and Tactic.

[Jennifer]

@Ender:

In chess, there is only one goal - KKF (kill the King first), but an infinite variety of plays that will get you there.

And in Axis and Allies there are only two goals for the allies - KJF or KGF, but an infinite variety of plays that will get you there as well.

Unless you play with VCs, in which case there are 3 ways.

[Crazy Ivan]

:-o
For me, A@A is all about the opening game turn. Mid game, ( or, how to keep my stategy intact turns) starts on turn two and lasts untill I can see the light at the end of the tunnel, then that is the end game, ( for one of us). :|
Tactics, my favorite part, supports my overall strategy, which I am constantly trying to keep secret,( so much so I sometimes forget what I’m trying to do). The joy of the game for me, other than winning, is when I can surpise my opponent with an unforseen manuvere that even they respect. 8-)
C.I.

[Lucifer]

KJF again…… :roll:

KJF generally do not work against decent axis players, and also if u play with no tech, no NA’s, no VC’s.
Pure domination, no tech, TTL. Low luck or dice doesn’t matter as long as dices are average, or else u would lose
to a 5 year old…
With somewhat even players, KJF will fail to win games. Maybe it could work 1 of 10 times.
KJF (imo) means building every US unit from LA.

[Jennifer]

Tech is about the only way the Axis can win against KJF in my experience.  Tech doesn’t help the allies as much as the axis in most games. (Mainly cause America is the only ally that normally can afford tech.  Japan and Germany can each afford it and should go for it, IMHO.)

[frood]

Umm - if KJF was so effective, wouldn’t we see a lot more of it?

[Jennifer]

@Ender:

Umm - if KJF was so effective, wouldn’t we see a lot more of it?

No.  KJF requires you to have a fluid strategy.  You have to be able to change course here and there to make up for bad attacks, or unexpected maneuvers.  It also requires you to finance ships and armies.  In other words, KJF requires more brainpower then KGF which is very formulaic.  You build more infantry then your opponent, you try to get him to trade more then you lose, etc.  KGF becomes who can stack infantry the fastest and then push forward.  KJF becomes who can stack transports, submarines, carriers, position themselves to out maneuver the other fleet and land in the right order to win.

KJF is also easier, financially on the allies because Japan starts as one of the weakest nations IPC for IPC against her opponents.  That’s not to mean its “easier then KGF” it’s easier for the allies to win if they work on it then KGF.  Germany’s probably earning 42-55 IPC a round.  Japan’s earning 30-35 IPC a round.  Which is going to be easier to attack?  Which nation is spread out making it hard to reinforce and which can walk around at will, throwing tanks around for defense and offense and which had to buy transports to go get their land back?

[trihero]

KJF is also easier, financially on the allies because Japan starts as one of the weakest nations IPC for IPC against her opponents.  That’s not to mean its “easier then KGF” it’s easier for the allies to win if they work on it then KGF.  Germany’s probably earning 42-55 IPC a round.  Japan’s earning 30-35 IPC a round.  Which is going to be easier to attack?  Which nation is spread out making it hard to reinforce and which can walk around at will, throwing tanks around for defense and offense and which had to buy transports to go get their land back?

I just want to add a couple things which is that while Japan makes less money, that they are also harder to get to because only one nation can produce significant amount of units to contest them, and also that while Japan makes less money, this means the Allies also have less to gain when pushing in.

So far my favorite argument for KJF is the “wtf” factor which some people respond to badly because they haven’t seen it before, plus bad dice in naval situations will really put your butt in the frying pan because it’s way too expensive to climb back up.

[U-505]

Japan makes less money, yes. But, they have 2 advantages in that they have a ton of ground units easily transportable from zero or low-income islands and all of their heavy purchases are already out of the way. Their navy+air support outclasses anything on the board and will continue to do so for 2 turns at least. Their income may be low, but they can use it flexibly because US units built in sz55/W US take time to reach them so they have leeway in purchasing to counter what they feel is the most immediate threat.

And I think that KJF is easier on the Axis in that while you need both good German and Japanese players against KGF, you only need a good Japanese player in KJF. Against KJF, the German player could be Banjo the clown puppet for all it matters because Germany’s strategy is a virtual no-brainer.

[frood]

Is Germany’s strategy a no-brainer? I haven’t really faced a KJF (except for DM’s mid-game special) so I’m not sure what I’d do. I think it might involve buying TRNs in the Med to take Caucasus and the Suez quickly, to both take Russia or support Japan.

[Romulus]

I thought that a good German counter for KJF could be building a lot of land units to advance against Moscow as soon as possible.
At the same time, grabbing of Africa IPC could be also a worthy help for the Japan.

May be this a viable strategy for Germany or may be more useful to build a string fleet and then try to invade UK?

[Jennifer]

Germany’s only response to a KJF is to press Russia at the expense of all else.  There’s no time or resources for flamboyancy.

BTW, I’d say it’s a bit of an over statement to say “they have a ton of ground units easily transportable from zero or low-income islands and all of their heavy purchases are already out of the way.” 505.

A ton means 5 infantry? (Solomons, Carolines, Wake, New Guinea and Okinawa.)  Because the 2 on Philippines, the two on E. Indies and the 1 on Borneo arn’t exactly “low-income” in my mind.

And just how easy is it to get some of those?  2 turns out and 2 turns back, that’s 4 turns.  Not exactly simple, especially with America coming at you all hot and heavy like a 16 year old boy on his first real date!

Some of their major purchases are out of the way.  But you are tying up 6 fighters, 2 aircraft carriers, 2 battleships instead of letting them go free and probably forcing them to buy a 3rd carrier just to survive.  That’s significantly less punch available to put pressure on Russia’s heartland.

Meanwhile, you have America + Carrier, Fighter, Destroyer, Submarine, 2 Transports from England.  Yes, they cannot both attack at the same time, but that doesn’t mean they cannot defend at the same time.

[newpaintbrush]

@Cmdr:

Germany’s only response to a KJF is to press Russia at the expense of all else.  There’s no time or resources for flamboyancy.

No.

Germany must respond to the Allied moves.  If the Allies support Russia even a teeny bit, Germany gets held up, and that can be a real disaster, particularly if Germany does not have Africa.

Transports in S. Europe around G3-G4 can make a big difference.

[Jennifer]

@newpaintbrush:

@Cmdr:

Germany’s only response to a KJF is to press Russia at the expense of all else.  There’s no time or resources for flamboyancy.

No.

Germany must respond to the Allied moves.  If the Allies support Russia even a teeny bit, Germany gets held up, and that can be a real disaster, particularly if Germany does not have Africa.

Uh, my point exactly.  Germany has to pounce all over Russia like a girl who’s been seperated from her man while he’s off at war just as he gets back off the boat!

Africa is nice, but in this situation, Germany cannot afford any more units in Africa then what it put there in bid + round 1.  Everything, and I mean everything, has to be pounding on Russia as fast as possible.  I might even consider giving W. Europe back to France just so I don’t have to protect it anymore.  Notice, I said CONSIDER.

[Enskive]

ok the super agressiv german strat is.
I usal play LL 9 bid for the axis.
the bid goes 1 inf bele, ukarine, west russia.

then round 1 u stack kar. if ukraine is not atackt consider to atack west russia round 1.
Whith a litle luck russia cant hold westrussia.
U hold west europe round 1 whith 2 inf and 4 fighters. And 2 subs and 1 dest at sea zone 7. Rest of the game u trade westeurope. The navy in sea zone also dose that if uk uses fighters to atack it they cant reach west europa.

Also the stacking of kar, means that a uk landing over 1 units in norway is gonner get strafet.

Most plp that see that opning dont dare to go KJF. And if they do it takes about 5 ore 6 rounds of takning moskva.

I have never meat a KJF whith ic for india. but if they do i think its gonner go faster, because that means that uk can do less i europe.

Thats why i dont see a KJF work.

i may work if germany plays more defensiv round 1. But germany is meant to be played aggresiv ore else the axis lose.