• 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.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    @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.


  • :-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.


  • 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.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    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.)

  • 2007 AAR League

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

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    @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?


  • 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.

  • 2007 AAR League

    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.

  • 2007 AAR League

    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.


  • 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?

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    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.


  • @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.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    @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.


  • 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.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Well, part of your problem is you seem to be assuming a KJF on Russia 1.  KJF cannot really be assumed until UK 1 since nothing Russia does would change in either KGF or KJF.

    However, I think if the allies let you get 9 IPC and you put it all in Europe, they might just decide to crush Germany since now they don’t have to worry so much about protecting Africa.  That means England’s +9 IPC and Germany’s down 11 IPC they would otherwise have. (9 for Africa they take + 1 Algeria +1 Libya.) Actually, they’re also down Norway most likely so down another 3 for that and W. Russia would be a wash with Karelia.

    40 - 5 = 35 to face against Russia earning 23-26 and England earning 30-33 and America it just makes KGF so simple there’s no point in going for the KJF.

    If Germany, on the other hand, had +3 Infantry in Africa making the liberation of Egypt impossible, then an IC in India round 1 and going for the KJF almost seems like a watson moment "Elementary my dear Watson, elementary.)

    People like to say that Japan can easily swat the British and the Americans.  Look at their fleet.  Okay.  I’m looking, I’m not terribly impressed!

    Of Japan’s forces, only 17 out of 22 Infantry/Armor/Artillery are in reasonable range of hitting Asia.  The other 5 would require fleet investment to retreive, investment Japan can hardly afford against a determined KJF strategy.

    Of the 17 in range, only 7 are actually on the front lines.

    Fleet wise Japan is pretty well off, especially if Pearl goes well.  But with a massed British fleet in SZ 30 and the Americans massing in SZ 55, that’s not going to last forever.

    Now, Japan can get a quick boost to defensive power by building a carrier and landing all 6 fighters at sea.  Assuming none were lost in engagements.  But that’s their last quick boost.  And, as they will be facing an IC in Sinkiang and India (and later in China) it’s safe to assume they’ll be reduced to 21 IPC income really fast (Turn 3, maybe Turn 4.)  America will be at 45 IPC and England down at 20-24 depending on how things play out.

    Russia, of course, will be in the upper 20’s throughout now since they will have no need to protect their eastern flanks.

    What does Japan do?  They can cower in SZ 60/61 and hope to land enough troops to distract the allies until Russia falls.  They can advance and try to protect their major island investments but pull their transports away from SZ 60 so they can be used as fodder to stop the allies from unification.  They can try all of the above.  But none of that will really help in the long run.  By turn 7 or 8, even with the best Japanese strategy, Japan will crumble navally and be reduced to an island worth 8 IPC.

    Okay, so they have 8 IPC a round and can get 2 or 3 infantry.  Who cares?  The American and British (if it lives) fleets will be surrounding it while all three nations shift focus on Germany.  Yes, Germany literally dies first, but Japan has been reduced to a waking coma, as good as dead, if not legally dead yet.

    How does Japan survive?  Luck and lots of it!  They’re going to have to hope they can inflict serious damage to the combined fleets (because you know they will be forced to attack, America doesn’t care if Hawaii or Alaska is taken, why should they?  They have Kwangtung, Manchuria, E. Indies, and/or some other assets) so attacking the Japanese fleet, at least for a long time, is not their job.  Their job is to trade islands and position the Japanese into compromising situations.


  • I think Japan has more staying power than you may think Jen; 21 IPCs by round 3 or 4 sounds suspicious unless Russia has committed starting from R1, and even then the Japanese should be able to at least trade their original territories for 30 IPC income. Actually by round 3 or 4 India should fall hard unless the Russians heavily reinforced it. And if they heavily reinforce India, then the Japanese should go for sinkiang instead. If both were reinforced somehow, then the Russians should be weak on the German front.


  • IMO a KJF, if Jap does pearl, is even less likely to be a good strat, then if Jap skips pearl, which in most games
    i’ve seen seems to be standard J1. Some do pearl light, others attack pearl heavy, but I regard it as a standard opneing move J1. Maybe because the US might cause problems, I’m saying it cannot.
    But without the US pearl fleet, US have to build more pure naval assets for 1 more rnd than if Jap skips pearl.
    And with or without J1 pearl attack, I still don’t see US go island hopping if not for some strange reason the J players let US do want it wants…


  • This is my standart opning.

    i forgot to mention u can only put 1 unit a area. then u can only make the liberation of Egypt impossible 50 % of the time

    And this strat have never lost to KJF.

    first of all if uk is going to afrika that is 1 more round that they cant help russia.

    If russia sends troops against japan they will fall faster.

    and germany isent only getting like 35 icp it is more like 44 to 48 the first couple of rounds. As long as the stack is in kar u can trade arc norway, and 1 point west russia. And when u move your stack to west russia u will trade caus insted of norway.

    The usa can start taking the island from turn 3, but they will usal waith to turn 4 if no japan navy is purcaset, and then maybe later.
    If they purcase a sink ic then it will take some more rounds to be dominat in the pasific.

    japan will focus on the mainland for the 3 first rounds. then when the usa gets close to the island, the japan can decide if they want to defent them. Becuse russia will fall prety fast.

    it comes down to how much dmg uk/us can do to japan before moskva falls.

    And under these rulses, i will say that KJF dosent work, and i dont think i will change that before i lose to it, ore i see a top player do it.

    i guess Cmdr Jennifer  we just have to agree to disagree  :-)

    when it comes down to it, it just a game


  • Jennifer, I can’t remember ever have seen a game where Jap has crumbled by rnd. 7-8.
    And I’m not the most experienced player here, but 100% of games lost as axis, Germany is reduced and cannot
    threat anyone, Jap cannot take moscow, (even with 42-45 ipc) Russia’s too strong so axis lost…
    If someone tried your KJF strat against me I’m afraid that I might beat players who are generally better than me.

    By no disrespect, I think you like to tell fairytales.

Suggested Topics

Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

59

Online

17.8k

Users

40.4k

Topics

1.8m

Posts