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.
@Cmdr:
What does Japan do?
How does Japan survive?
occupy California
and same as usallul after you have the bay of cali under your control. I would only do KJF if peaal went horribly bad ro didn’t happen. but you don’t know that till after Russia and UK1 so it would be more of island hopping.( not ti destoy Japan just to annoy them)
If someone let me (as axis) have moscow, then u can have all the islands u want. I don’t need them if
G or J got caucus and moscow.
And I ask again, why have I not seen this strat tried and succed in the lobby, is it because all lobby players are
inferior?
If someone let me (as axis) have moscow, then u can have all the islands u want. I don’t need them if
G or J got caucus and moscow.
And I ask again, why have I not seen this strat tried and succed in the lobby, is it because all lobby players are
inferior?
Why have you not seen which strat tried and succeed?
Are you asking whether or not KJF is a good plan?
IMHO KJF is only good in SOME games.
I have to admit, I’ve seen Japan survive. But it was a very rare case, Japan made it through rounds 1 and 2 without loss (both on attack and defense). Take that as you will. (4 player game, I was England, so don’t look at me for the strat employed there.)
Anyway, loss of the mainland by round 3 or 4 is very reasonable. Without the mainland and making 50% as much in shipping as America resulting in the loss of New Guinea, Philippines, Okinawa, Borneo and E. Indies by turn 7 or 8 is very reasonable. Just how much money do you think the Japanese have??? They only start with 7 infantry, 2 fighters on the mainland and face 6 infantry in Buryatia, 4 infantry, fighter in china/sinkiang and 5 infantry, RUS armor, AA Gun and IC in India on round 1.
In almost every game I’ve seen in the lobby, and a few games i played against a friend, Jap has
about 40-49 ipc production.
I cannot remember a single game either watched or played, in which Jap has been reduced to that amount
Jennifer is claiming. But I do not doubt that this has happened in several of her games.
By KJF I define it as building everything from LA, or/and taking all Jap islands which have any production
value (except Tokyo).
In another thread there were several players who were claiming that KJF was used regularly, but not
the most used overall strat.
If more than one out of ten players use KJF more than one out of 10 games I’m really suprised.
Or maybe the KJF is mainly used in games with tech, NA’s, and VC’s.
LL or reg dice doesn’t matter much for this strat.
I played lots of multiplayer with both reg dice and LL, but still hardly any KJF which I can remember.
Oh yes, 2-3 games in which ended with terrible quarreling by my behalf, and I even tried it myself once,
that was when I made up my mind about the KJF.
This happened in the very beginning I started playing revised, and I have only played very few games f2f, still
I’m newb, cause I’ve only been playing for a few months, so maybe the KJF is more often used than I realize.
But I have fairly good overview of what strats the top (lobby) players are using, and learning from them is as
important as learning from own mistakes and victorys.
If you are playing one-on-one, then KJF is more viable than it is in a multiplayer game.
In a multi-player game, UK is taking a LOT on faith if they go KJF…
In every game you see in the lobby, Japan is ignored until Germany is pacified so yes, they have 50 IPC incomes.
In a KJF game, they never get to 40, let alone 50. In fact, it’s rather amazing if they ever make it to 35 since they do NOT get China, Sinkiang and India let alone have time to get Australia, Hawaii, Madagascar or New Zealand!
That’s the difference.
Agree with Jen. I think KJF is easier people thinks. Letting Japan rampaging alone is not a good idea …
Agree with Jen. I think KJF is easier people thinks. Letting Japan rampaging alone is not a good idea …
It is possible to delay japan. Without committing to a KJF, (Se 2vs2 tournament).
But i agree you can´t let japan have it´s way.
SJF (Slow Japan First) is far more viable than KJF (Kill Japan First)
Well, let’s clarify here, my idea of KJF is reducing Japan to an island. Actually TAKING Japan when it is stacked with 40 infantry, 4 fighters and half a dozen tanks is not very viable until Germany falls.
Reducing Japan to just an island, however, is much easier for the allies then reducing Germany to Berlin, IMHO. It’s a logistics thing. I can muster more firepower on Japan then Japan can set up defenses because I earn more and he’s spread out.
My point is that the Allies do not even need to expend the resources needed to reduce Japan to Tokyo to be effective.
Keep Japan under $30 for several turns early with minimal/zero investment by the Allies and the Allies win, PERIOD.
Reducing Japan to just an island, however, is much easier for the allies then reducing Germany to Berlin, IMHO. It’s a logistics thing. I can muster more firepower on Japan then Japan can set up defenses because I earn more and he’s spread out.
I don’t see that myself. For one, there’s less IPCs to gain if you go after Japan, so even if it is easier, you’re also getting less out of it.
And is it easier? Only one nation has a complex close enough to threaten Japan, and that nation is starting way in the hole if Pearl is overrun immediately. Plus, you don’t advocate trying to do something with the Russians early on, which means Japan has a lighter load to carry on J1.
Japan may be spread out on J1, but once it solidifies then lots of things are in trouble. An Indian/Sin complex are extremely difficult to defend by J3.
Taking Germany is 40 IPC
Taking Japan is 30 IPC
Which is cheaper in cost to the allies? Japan by far! Smaller armies, more spread out, harder to defend and counter attack.
Also, who benefits most from killing Japan? WRONG! England then Russia! England should be taking E. Indies and Borneo at least, maybe New Guinea and Philippines before Japan sinks their fleet. With an IC in India, it’s reasonable to expect FIC to fall to England as well. That makes up for any losses in Africa, and you’ll have some. (Think SZ 30 unification, btw. Yes, Japan can sink it, and I beg them to go for it, cause it’s gunna cost them their airforce and their navy to do it.)
Next is Russia who will push into Manchuria and Kwangtung for easy income while America puts up ICs in Sinkiang and China to keep them in Russian hands.
That leaves Okinawa for America, basically.
This means Germany’s facing a Russia earning 30 and an England earning at least 30 give or take depending on what Japan does and focuses on. So what if Germany is earning 45-50 IPC, they’re still being out spent by Russia + England and they don’t have to take Berlin, just hold them until Japan is removed from the game, but not necessarily conquered. (Good to do if you can do it, reasonably, but not necessary if the cost and time are too high.)
Also, during this, it is pretty reasonable to expect America to be sending some units to Europe. Probably 2 a round at start (you DO have 2 transports in the Atlantic on USA 1!) expanded to 4 by round 5 give or take. It’s not that expensive, 6 IPC out of 42 income to start with, that’s 36 IPC for fleet to fight 30 IPC from Japan in the beginning. And that’s if Japan doesn’t build any armies at all, which means if they do that, you’re already effective since they cannot hold back the British, Russians and Americans then.
Which is cheaper in cost to the allies? Japan by far! Smaller armies, more spread out, harder to defend and counter attack.
If by smaller armies you mean the same amount of airforce as Germany (if not more since it’s comparatively difficult to dislodge a Japanese fighter than a German fighter in Round 1), and flexibility with transports + bb shots…? And even if you considered Japan’s army to be small, smaller still are any new troops that the Allies can put down in Asia.
I also don’t see a working proposition to hold India, do you start sending Russian inf on R1 towards that area? Because if you don’t, J3 it’s over for that complex. J2 has all the China inf and 4 tran of equipment into F. Indo, which is about 12-13 men with 6 fighters 1 bomber and potentially 2 bb shots. In that time UK could have constructed 6 inf for a total of 11 inf 1 aa, which isn’t nearly enough.
So what if Germany is earning 45-50 IPC, they’re still being out spent by Russia + England and they don’t have to take Berlin, just hold them until Japan is removed from the game, but not necessarily conquered.
Germany is arguably outspending both Russia and UK since the UK is dumping a complex in India and at least 9 IPCs a turn to try to hold it. Russia too has to send some inf/arm towards India to hold it.
And Russia shouldn’t be making any permanent gains in Manchuria…especially since you don’t commit to KJF on R1. But I’m not sure, do you send 6 inf to Manchuria on R1 or what?
Hmm, 25 Infantry in walking distance to the enemy vs 7 infantry in walking distance (15 if you count within transport range without leaving SZ 60) is a pretty significant size difference. Especially since Japan has ONE, count it, ONE tank while Germany has TEN, count them, TEN tanks not including the bid.
Sure, they both have 6 fighters and a bomber. And? Last time I read the rules, fighters couldn’t liberate your islands after I took them away!
And England:
Probably:
At least +14, maybe +18.
Down: Africa, 9 IPC.
That means Englands got 39 IPC coming in allowing 30 to be spend in England and 9 in India. No problem.
Only way that is going to change is if you jump down England’s throat at all costs with Japan on J1 resulting in the loss of 3 or 4 fighters at least, maybe even a battleship in SZ 30.
Anyway you slice it, though, Japan’s losing islands and getting kicked off the mainland, once it’s off the mainland, England doesnt have to invest in India anymore.
