Crazy George!

[Jennifer]

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.

[Lucifer]

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.

[Guest]

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…

[Jennifer]

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.

[Funcioneta]

Agree with Jen. I think KJF is easier people thinks. Letting Japan rampaging alone is not a good idea …

[Nix]

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.

[Guest]

SJF (Slow Japan First) is far more viable than KJF (Kill Japan First)

[Jennifer]

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.

[Guest]

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.

[trihero]

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.

[Jennifer]

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.

[trihero]

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?

[Jennifer]

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:

• Borneo (4)
• E. Indies (4)
• FIC (3)
• Norway (3)

Probably:

• New Guinea (1)
• Philippines (3)

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.

[trihero]

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!

25 infantry of mixed origins without offensive backup which also have to travel a ways to become of use. 25 infantry, but 0-3 added reinforcements per turn, compared to a mix of 8 units coming out of the Japanese complex which are transported flexibly in many directions.

And about Germany…since they have so many tanks to begin with (more than all the other nations combined initially), then why is your response to ignore Germany and go after the guy with the 1 tank? Can Russia afford to deal with a big, immediate threat?

And England:

• Borneo (4)
• E. Indies (4)
• FIC (3)
• Norway (3)

Probably:

• New Guinea (1)
• Philippines (3)

Incredibly optimistic. I understand you’re trying to be clever when you say that fighters can’t liberate islands…but they can defend them, and still be within range of the next island you try to go to. The UK doesn’t have much punching power with their fleet, so a defensive force of 2 inf + 1 fig is more than it should try to go after. And it seems like you think the UK suffer zero losses as they island hop, but all it takes it 2 hits and you have to go scurrying back to Australia to pick up the one extra inf you have left.

The UK shouldn’t have Norway, because the Germans with a simple carrier buy will keep them out of there for a long while, if not indefinitely.

I just don’t see how the UK magically invaded all those islands with no losses, and also without the Japanese doing anything.

Plus, India is going down hard if all you do is build an IC and 3 inf a round there, it requires much more defense than that. And, I’m still not sure what you’re doing with the Russian inf. Since you don’t commit to KJF on R1, I assume 1 inf in Bury and 5 in Yakut?

[Jennifer]

Bean,

If you are defending islands iwth your fighters, then you are not defending your fleet with them.  That means your fleet is easy prey.  It’s a trade off.  But realistically speaking, England’s getting E. Indies for sure and probably Borneo.  FIC is almost for sure a gonner since you have to counter the Americans or be forced away from Japan, which means you’re attacking Buryatia, Manchuria or Kwangtung, not FIC.

Philippines and New Guinea are the only ones in doubt for the British and only because I don’t know if you are going to run from the Americans to kill the British and then try to get some islands back, or if you are going to stand up against America and let the smaller, British fleet, move around until they are in a better position to be attacked.  Two different styles of play with Japan, both valid, and both equally doomed.

As for Germany, they can go full bore against Russia, and should.  But Russia’s not solo by any means.  There’s a trickle of Americans coming in (2 transports at least, resulting in 2 units a round, maybe more.) And at least 6 British if not 8 British a round.  Yes, it’s a mixed force, but it’s on defense and can use each other to punch holes in Germany’s defense and exploit them with another nation’s tanks.  Germany/Japan don’t have that ability yet.

Thing is, KJF is a lot easier if the person engaging the KJF knows what s/he’s doing because hardly anyone ever has to defend against it, meaning the strategy of defense has not proliferated throughout the gaming community.  Forces players to actually think for themselves, not adapt someone else’s plans to their specific situation.

Meanwhile, just about every Kill Germany First strategy has been employed multiple times and everyone’s at least heard about ways to stop every ploy.  This, even without the significant military and financial advantage of the allies over the Japanese, makes KJF so much easier then KGF in the hands of a skilled player.  And in low luck games, it’s just sick how fast the Allies can beat Japan back!

If you don’t believe me you and I can go a game KJF low luck, bid 7 for the axis (you said in another thread that’s what you assume the Axis have, so I’ll give that to you, only caveat is only 2 of those IPC can go to Japan since most players would put their full bid to Germany in this case.)

I say Low Luck cause I don’t want to hear from myself or you, crying when 25 defending tanks get killed by 3 attacking infantry and a bomber. :P

[Guest]

The “trick” to slowing a KJF is for Japan to keep their fleet consolidated, preserve their flattops, keep their FIGs in range, and take out one or the other navy very early.

For example, if UK consolidates in SZ30, you go full-bore on SZ30 and wipe out that fleet and remove the threat, even with the cost in Japan forces.  Knowing that you will make that attack, Japan plans their J1 purchase accordingly.

If Japan wipes out SZ30, then UK is not taking much of anything in the Pacific.  :evil:

[Jennifer]

@ncscswitch:

The “trick” to slowing a KJF is for Japan to keep their fleet consolidated, preserve their flattops, keep their FIGs in range, and take out one or the other navy very early.

For example, if UK consolidates in SZ30, you go full-bore on SZ30 and wipe out that fleet and remove the threat, even with the cost in Japan forces.  Knowing that you will make that attack, Japan plans their J1 purchase accordingly.

If Japan wipes out SZ30, then UK is not taking much of anything in the Pacific.  :evil:

Correct, if Japan hits SZ 30 en masse they will probably win.  They will probably lose a carrier and most of their fighters, but they will probably win.  This would reduce Japan to roughly the size of America since they cannot do both SZ 30 and SZ 52 in my opinion.  If they do, Japan has just suicided their entire fleet.

[Guest]

They can.

I have done it.

They are a bit slow in Asia after that move, but in a KJF, if you wipe out both fleets on J1, then KJF is pretty much toast anyway  :-D

[Jennifer]

What do you hit each with?

Because, the best I see is Japan down to 1 carrier and a pair of fighters after all that. (After America counter strikes Hawaii and sinks the BB there, btw.)

edit

SZ 30:

British Defending: Fighter, Carrier, 2 Transports, Submarine, Destroyer
Japanese Attacking: 4 Fighters, Carrier, Battleship
(Fighter from SZ 50, Fighter from FIC, 2 Fighters, Carrier, Battleship from SZ 37)

Attacker: Fighter, Battleship Remaining. (Note, you’d have to sink the Carrier to be assured of sinking the rest of the British Fleet.) 73% Odds to win with at least a battleship remaining.

SZ 52:

Americans Defending: Fighter, Carrier, Submarine
Japanese Attacking: Battleship, Destroyer, Submarine, Bomber
(Aircraft Carrier from SZ 50 must be available to go to SZ 38 to retrieve fighters, thus no legal landing zone for the fighter housed in Japan to hit SZ 52.  Carrier also cannot attack SZ 52 since it must be available to retrieve fighters in SZ 38.

Japan survives but with either a bomber and a battleship or a destroyer and a battleship (possible bomber survival as well.)

This can easily be counter attacked by Battleship, Transport, 2 Fighters and a Bomber sinking another Japanese warship.

To be honest, Switch, I’m not seeing a viable attack on both SZ 30 and SZ 52 by Japan.  Not once you factor in luck.  SZ 52 can easily scorew 3 hits on round 1 defense or you can easily score only 1 hit in round 1 yourself allowing for a round 2 or even 3 defense in SZ 52.  Fighter dies last, of course.

Meanwhile, you have to tie up two aircraft carriers and a battleship for SZ 30 and, while you might come out miles ahead in the battle, you might also get your buttocks handed to you.  You’re attacking a lot of high defense targets and there’s fodder in there as well.  Not to mention one of the ships is a submarine that can only hit your warships, might come into play forcing you to lose a warship instead of a fighter, it probably wont.

Anyway you slice it, if Japan hits both fleets, they’ve effectively given themselves a vasectomy.  It can be reversed, but not without a MAJOR cost and a bit of luck, IMHO.

[Guest]

With an SZ30 UK fleet move, Japan has a TRN available for fodder in SZ52 (since the SZ59 TRN is still alive).

'nuff said.