Crazy George!

[Jennifer]

Or Japan can get bottled up at India while UK puts 9 IPC into it and still has 20+ against Germany and America can sink 6 IPC into Sinkiang a round bottling you more and, just as soon as you think KJF was never really intended, a large American fleet moves back into the Pacific putting you in a very tight spot.

Any ICs you build will be happily used by the Allies when you are off the mainland though.  Since you have no fleet and no army, there’s really nothing to stop them.

And, once you are gone, the India IC can begin reinforcing Caucasus directly instead of walking the long, tedious route.

So KJF is neither null and void, nor is it averted.  You have to keep putting out warships since you have none left, you have no fighters left (really) to trade territories, you’re bottled up tight in your three little territories, which wont last becuase you’ll be losing FIC regularly to the British, it’s the most secure way to prevent India from falling.

[Guest]

I love how you post Jen… ignoring the obvious…

Japan DOES have a fleet… a fleet of at least 2 BB, 1 AC, 1 DST, plus TRNs.  $76 worth of capital ships plus TRNs and FIGs…

No Japan Army?  I liberate Manch on J2 w/ 4 divisions.  The following turn I drop 8 divisions into Asia.  Russia is sending 0 divisions to Asia (after losing their starting 6 INF and a FIG), and UK and USA are sending 5 total per turn… odds favor Japan by 8 to 5.

OK, so UK keeps build 3 units (INF) in India per turn.  That is $9 of their dwindling cash flow, leaving only $12 per turn for London (4 INF per turn).  So much for UK helping with the Germans, especially if I wipe out your fleet using SZ5 forces and AF just ONCE…

And USA gears up for KGF… they need to spend $40 just to get up to speed on TRNs (a full build), which gets the USA up to 8 units per turn against Germany.  Meanwhile Germany is building somewhere around 16 units per turn…

Are you seeing the problem here yet?

You let Germany out of the box with your Turn 1 moves, and you failed to contain Japan at the same time.  Japan just keeps trading, and Germany just keeps growing.

Game Axis.

[Jennifer]

You keep missing the obvious yourself.

You have 7 Infantry at start on the Asian Continent.

You may or may not use them.  Most people would use them to kill the American fighter resulting in only 4 or 5 remaining.

You have 2 Battleships and a Carrier in your fantasy of the results.  You could easily only have 1 battleship after SZ 30 goes bad or less if SZ 30 and SZ 52 go bad, which can EASILY happen, if not a statistical probability.

America has 56 IPC in capitol ships, GUARANTEED.  More if their carrier lives in SZ 52, again a stastical improbability, but not unheard of.

USA/UK are putting 5 ground units a round into the Continent.  You are putting 6.  5 can defend against 6 much easier then 6 can attack 5.  Especially when you have no fighters.

Russia’s putting 1 or 2 in for a short while, just until the ICs are protected, say Round 3, then they can phase them out.  Again, if Manchuria is too strong, then they don’t attack it, they don’t have too.  They only have to keep Japan from spreading, which they are doing just fine in Buryatia since you have no fighters to hit them with!

Of course, Japan maybe buys fighters on J2 and 3, meaning they have NOTHING to transport in land forces giving the allies even a STRONGER foot hold.  Which means on USA 3 when America has 5 Submarines, 2 Transports, 2 Destroyers, Battleship, 2 Aircraft Carriers and 4 Fighters in the Pacific Japan’s got enough fire power to at least match them, but they are only collecting 21 IPC vs America’s 42 IPC from that point. (36 IPC after you deduct for the 2 infantry a round I am sending to Asia to annoy Germany.)

[Guest]

I am done debating your fantasy world Jen.

If you want to base your strats on low probability results, feel free…

That MIGHT explain why you are winless against me  :evil:

[trihero]

Interesting discussion, makes me think. I don’t know if I’d throw the kitchen sink at a SZ30 link because it uses up a lot of fighters, but on the other hand it does secure the oceans for a couple rounds.

[DarthMaximus]

I like to unify my UK fleet in Sz 30.  There is a good enough chance Japan only comes out with 2 units left (bb, ac), and that leaves them 3 moves away from sz 60.

If I can take out 3-4 J ftrs I’ll do it.  Now if UK rolls slightly up on the first rd of battle (3 hits instead of 2), then Japan is looking at a potential disaster.

I’m not really a big fan of the alternatives for the UK, since Japan has 2 BB’s they can essentially pick you apart for no losses or the UK ships just run away anyway.  For example the DD to sz 59 can be counter with no loss, the sub/ftr to sol sz maybe costs you 1 more unit at Pearl, but the sub can be countered with air, so that is no risk and the UK AC runs away.  So UK kills a trn + 1 more unit at pearl.  But the SZ 30 move kills 3-4 ftrs, and has the potential to kill an AC/BB.

Also the US doesn’t have to counter Pearl if Japan gets lucky there, but if you are going in lite with 1 trn, 1 sub, 1 dd, 1 bb, 1 bom you may take 3 hits over two rds of battle since there is no guarantee you get 3 on Off in 1 rd.

Depending on the Pearl results and Non-Coms the US can:
Counter Pearl
Strafe then retreat/continue depending on rd 1 dice or how Japan chooses their losses
Stand pat and drop a naval buy in Sz 55.
Do nothing and go after Germany

The US (naval buy) can end up with something like:

1 trn, 1 dd, 2 ac, 4 ftrs, 1 bb

And immediately equal Japan in terms of Naval power and possibly outclass them.  Certaily after Rd 2 with the US having another 42 compared to ~30 for Japan, the US will out class them.

That being said you can limit the US’s aggressiveness if Germany took Gib and dropped and AC or trn(s) in Sz 5.  In this case the UK will probably need the US help to contain Germany so Japan may have a bit more freedom.

But I still don’t think I’d risk losing 4 ftrs for the UK fleet down in Sz 30.  I prefer to use them for my early land offensive since you only have 1 arm to start.

[Jennifer]

Thanks, DM.  That’s what I’ve been trying to say.  None of the KJF moves in Round 1 lock the Allies into KJF.  However, all the proposed responses to KJF by Japan does hurt them if KJF is called off, and, I don’t think they are terribly good moves even if KJF is on.

3 Rounds to get the BB and CV from SZ 30 to SZ 60 where they’ll be useful against America.  That’s 3 rounds of 40 IPC in fleet or 120 IPC, potentially.

And about those numbers, how many times have you gone into battle with overwhelming force only to get your butt handed to you by amazing defense in the first round of battle?  Problem when looking into a vacuum is that there’s still a 1 in 6 chance that every time  you attack a defending transport with a plane you will lose your plane.

SZ 30 could look REALLY bad for Japan after round 1.  There’s a lot of strong defensive pieces and some fodder for England.  There’s no fodder for Japan (BB doesn’t really count as fodder, it’s more of a sponge) and a lot of pieces, IMHO, Japan really needs!

And if building an IC for Japan in India convinces Japan to throw their air force and navy away, either through destruction or by placing it out of strategic locations, then it’s well worth it.

And if Japan plays conservatively trying to buy Germany time, the way I would recommend it go, then it may pay off for you in the long run.  After all, why hit SZ 30 now???  Why not hit Pearl light, consolidate, take out China, set up a major counter strike on Manchuria (or better take Buryatia, since you have the firepower right now) and get an IC up in Kwangtung where it’s pretty safe for at least a couple rounds.  Your conservative play may convince the Allies to go with the more traditional KGF.

And if the Allies do go KJF after that conservative play.  You can always use your consolidated fleet to sink the British at a time more convenient to you, reducing your costs to only a submarine or two, instead of 4 fighters with the potential of a carrier and a battleship on top of it.

Sure, I’ve played 2 honest games with Switch, and he’s won both.  Neither were KJF.  There is a 3rd battle that he wanted called off after the disastrous results of Russia 1’s attacks, I agreed.  He likes to count that as a win, I don’t.  If I had asked to have it called off, it might have been a different story.

And Switch is pretty good at defending Germany against the Allies.  Another reason I’d lean towards hitting him with KJF.  He plays a little loose with his assets in my opinion.  He’s thrown the entire luftwaffe away trying to kill my infantry in Libya before.  So for him to throw away his Zeros to sink a couple transports in SZ 30 is no surprise to me.  Would I recommend the average player who likes to have an air force do it?  No.  I, honestly, am not comfortable with less then 10 fighters on the board, 12 is better.  (4 US, 4 UK, 4 USSR for example, not necessarily 10 for America, 10 for England, etc…)  I also don’t like to needlessly endanger my capitols.  They’re bloody expensive!  Especially for the axis, but also for the allies.

The Carrier in SZ 52 is an expected loss.  So having it or not never really comes into play.  However, the potential to sink 2 or 3 of Japan’s 4 warships in round 1 is an unexpected boon and should be taken up, even if you don’t plan to kill japan first!  Those warships can be quite annoying when you want to liberate Africa!  And if Japan does face a KJF, they’ll have to rebuild them anyway.

[Guest]

First off,
The SZ30 ships are only 2 moves from action against the US…
1 move to SZ46, the second to SZ52.

Second…
Jen, you surrendered every single game you played against me, including the one where dice made you surrender in Turn 2.  Your revisionist history does not fly here.  Saying that you have lost a game and asking for a new game form the start is still a loss.

Third:
Yes, the dice COULD go very badly for Japan.  They could also go very badly for the Allies and Japan come out of that fight with a loaded AC and BB.

Fourth:
You are the one who spoke of UK taking 4 island groups in 3 turns.  I was simply pointing out that such was not a guarantee, nor is it even a probability.

Again… if you wish to base your strats on low probabilities, be my guest.  I will continue to rack up wins against you (as will most others here) so long as you continue to do so.

[Jennifer]

3 Turns from action against the US:

1 SZ 30 to SZ 47
1 SZ 47 to SZ 52
1 SZ 52 to US Fleet in SZ 55

Second, you offered after you saw how bad the dice were.  I didn’t ask.  You just wanted to negate the game.  Stop trying to be a revisionist yourself.  And yes, I surrendered the other two, I was an idiot and went KGF against you, instead of KJF.  If it were KJF you may have lost.

Third:  It’s very probable that England will get 2 or 3 island groups in a normal KJF game since most players are not going to want to risk 4 fighters and a carrier to sink them when they can wait and sink them later.  Especially considering they will have to dedicate their entire purchase to fleet with your option (2 transports + destroyer = 28 IPC, out of 30, leaves nothing for ground forces) and the high probability of losing something else of import at Hawaii or, at the very least, having the last bit of your air force tied up defending your fleet there, who will suddenly be out matched, out gunned and out numbered by America’s purchase.

I’m not basing anything on LOW probabilities.  I’m just not assuming I’ll get the average result.  I like to be a little more flexible and assume the enemy is going to score 20% higher then average on their defense and I’ll score 20% low on my offense.  It usually seems to work out that way when I really need the battle to go my way, so I may as well assume it.

I, also don’t spend the money twice on purchases, or use my assets in two different battles in the same round like some people.

[Guest]

I don’t think I counted any units twice :-)

As for land units… I have plenty available without purchasing them on J1… 8 INF, 1 ART, 1 ARM all within range of Asia to start.

[Jennifer]

You didn’t, but most people who argue that KJF isn’t possible do.

You have Japan, Okinawa, Philippines, Wake within transport range, realistically, with Japan on J1 and J2.  50% of your capitol ships are 3 turns away from the American fleet, assuming one or both are not destroyed.  Another 25% might be forced to move 2 turns away to recover fighters.

Japan’s going to face 17 Ground forces assuming China died (J1) on J2.  That’s not including planes or tanks that might “visit” for a while.

Meanwhile, you have, on the conservative side, 5 of your original 7 mainland units left + 4 you transported.  11.  Not very inspiring.

Each round you will transport 4-6 units (you’re pretty limited having transported the lion’s share of what you have in J1, not much left in J2.  Fill the transports, but after that, you have to build ground forces or venture out of safe waters to collect stragglers.)  The allies, on the other hand, are building in secure locations.  You put in 6, the allies put in 6 + 3 - 5 warships.  You put in 6, the allies put in 5 (no russians) and 3-5 warships.

Eventually you’re going to get chocked off.

Japan’s only hope is to be conservative and hope Germany cracks Moscow before Japan is limited to Tokyo.

[Guest]

The key there Jen is “eventually”

Yes, if the Allies go 100% KJF, then YES, Japan will, within a few turns, be reduced to a purely defensive game.

But by wiping out the UK Fleet on J1, their income loss will be reduced as UK is no longer a threat AT ALL.
By wiping out the Pearl fleet on J1 the US is slowed, needing to rebuild in SZ55 on USA1 or suffer massive losses in SZ52 on a Pearl Counter.
By stacking in Manch, the Russians take HEAVY losses on R2 and Japan can easily counter on J2 and Russia is now no longer present in the Far East.

And with Japan having (on a conservative count) 2 BB, 1 AC, 2 FIGs, 1 TRN… plus J1 build of 2 TRN, 1 DST… it will take the Americans a while to be able to counter that fleet (2 turns anyway).

And that is the whole point of my move… You make the Allies have to go SLOWER in the Pacific, so Japan maintains approx $30+ income while Germany soars over $50.  $83 is the break point.  Once the Axis exceeds $83, then the economics of the game shift in their favor.

[Jennifer]

I don’t see it as two turns to counter your fleet.  I just have to convince you to attack me.  I don’t have to attack you.

USA 2 I have a fleet plenty big enough to venture into the pacific with America and take some islands.  Especially since Australia and New Zealand are safe.

Japan, on the other hand, has to rebuild to even have a prayer of keeping land based forces, let alone taking either Sinkiang or India!

[Guest]

Against a KJF, all Japan has to do is HOLD.

And I have demonstrated how Japan can indeed hold their income against the version of KJF that you espouse.

UK is NOT taking the islands that you stated.
USA needs to take an extra turn ot 2 to build up their fleet before they can advance.

What more do you expect from Japan as they hold their own AND their income against a consolidated Allied push… while Germany grows by leaps and bounds…

[Jennifer]

No, England’s not taking the islands, they are taking FIC, Kwangtung and Manchuria instead. :P

[Guest]

Which are a LOT easier for Japan to take back.

Trust me, I have done it.  8-)

[Jennifer]

Just because your opponent was or was not a putz doesn’t mean you’ll be able to duplicate the results.

[axis_roll]

@Cmdr:

Just because your opponent was or was not a putz doesn’t mean you’ll be able to duplicate the results.

You are good for a chuckle every now and then  :-)

[frood]

@Cmdr:

Just because your opponent was or was not a putz doesn’t mean you’ll be able to duplicate the results.

I have yet to see a game where results are duplicated. Because of that, trying to predict what will follow from any line of play is pretty futile, even meaningless.

The only way I think I’d be prepared to follow these arguments is if people would actually play them out, using No Luck to simulate the outcome of the dice. You would have to plan the moves as if it was ADS though.

In that way, you could prove at least what is one likely path that the game would follow, and you would avoid all these hindsight strategies (“yeah but if you did that I would have done this…”) . But this “Japan will lose these islands and Russia will have 40 Inf in Sinkiang and US will have 200 naval units (assuming they spend every dime on navy” just doesn’t cut it.

[Jennifer]

The point I was making is if your opponent under-estimates your ability to fight and pulls forces back to crush your other country(ies) before subduing you sufficiently, then you might be able to recover and restore yourself.

Should you consider that to be a “normal” situation?  Only if you also consider an AA Gun shooting down all 3 bombers you send to SBR in one round “normal” or some other unlikely event.

It is a far safer assumption to presume that once Japan has been completely kicked off the mainland and facing a major fleet investment that they will not be able to recover sufficiently and that this would almost force Germany to take some risks in an effort to distract the allies or to over throw Russia and thus relieve pressure from Japan.