Crazy George!

[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.

[frood]

@Cmdr:

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.

Never assume…

It might CHANGE how Germany plays, but I don’t think you can assume that it will start making risky (ie. bad) moves. It could just as easily make Germany be more cautious, more exact, more focused.

[Jennifer]

I said risky, not bad. :)

Risky: attacking 2 defending infantry with 2 infantry, fighter.
Bad: attacking 2 defending infantry with infantry, 2 fighters.

With all the leisure time Berlin has in a normal KGF game (because it takes 4 or 5 rounds for the Allies to get fully functional) they have no need to make a risky move.  Instead they can do a good move:

Good: attacking 2 defending infantry with 3 infantry and 1 or 2 fighters as available

[Lucifer]

It takes longer time for allies to get fully functional for KJF.
And KGF is not easy by any means. Not if the axis player is as good as the allie player.

A couple of days ago I actually witnessed a real KJF in the lobby!!!

Tokyo was captured and held before Berlin. I think the allie player was better, and ppl told me that allies had a big lead, but then he switched to KJF, and Germany had all of caucus moscow etc. Game went on for about 12-13 rnds and I only saw the last few rnds. I call it freak show…  :mrgreen:
That KJF player is not a top player in the lobby, but he is among the better ones.
And he readily admitted that he didnt use this strat often, and when he faced good opponents they wouldn’t “let him” do a KJF.
The KJF strat is inferior to KGF by efficiancy, but I it can be more fun when it succeds.

The KJF only works when the allie player is way better, or dice favorable for the allies.

[Jennifer]

I think it’s easier to mobilize against Japan then Germany.

Against Japan you already have the majority of your fleet in theater.  To go against Germany, you need 3 rounds to move it into theater, 4 to employ it.

Against Japan you out number him in ground forces from the start. (7 Infantry for Japan on the mainland, vs 14 Infantry (6 USSR, 4 USA, 4 UK before Japan’s first move.)  Germany vastly out numbers the allies before her first turn on her front, and on her second turn, and third turn - usually.

Against Japan you vastly out number them in income.  Germany can quickly eclipse England and Russia combined given slightly above average dice.  Japan cannot.  Actually, against a KJF, Japan can’t even catch up to America.

Germany just seems like an easier kill because two allied capitols are right there.  (USA doesn’t count since it does, in effect, have two capitols.  East and West USA.  Since West USA has an IC and a build capacity of 10, 2 more then 3 other capitols, and equal to the 4th.)

[cyan]

BUt Japan’s navy is so much better than the allies. If Japan buys 3 trn for 24 ipc round 1. that is 2 ACs( 4 or 6 figs) 2 BB, 1 des, 1 sub, 4 trn. and possibly 1 bomber
thats a defense punch of 39 and 2 free hits. for offense thats 39 and 2 free hits. so Japan is getting 6-7 hits in battle round 1. Lets say america buys 1 ac, 1 fig, 1 sub, 1 trn. FOr america’s navy thats 1 battleship, 2 ac, 4 figs, 2 trn, 1 des, 1 sub and 1 bomber thats a offensive punch of 27, defense 33. Thats about 5 hits for punch and 1 freebie hit.

Even with all of the forces america could POSSIBLY muster to sz 55 on rd 1. its still dwarfed by Japan and they didn’t even have to go out of the way. and then when AMerica starts to sail west and are closing in, they can just plop down an round of like 5 subs for a punch of 10(not to mention 1st strike). Im not even counting the english navy because it should be rendered completely useless before america even has its first turn.  SO in other words Japan’s navy can easily protect it and allow Japan to land in asia business as usual.

[Guest]

The problem with a KJF strat is the reliance on TRNs by the Allies.

Without TRNs, the entire point of a KJF is moot… No TRNs, no land taken.

And that means STRAFES by the Imperial Navy…  Move in with lots of FIGs, SUBs, and BB’s, unleash an ass of damage sinking the Allied TRN’s, then retreat.

The Allies then have to send the surviving capital ships back to get more TRNs, and bring more forces forward.  And get strafed AGAIN.

I have played the Axis against a KJF before on more than one occasion.

One that does stick in my memory though had 10 USA divisions (5 INF, 5 ARM) stranded in Solomons.  They took Solomons, lost the majority of their fleet, and were NEVER able to get back to do anything with those units.

That was a HUGE bonus for Japan.  Not only the destruction of the US Fleet, but also the complete neutralization of $40 (an entire build) worth of US units that were completely impotent to do ANYTHING accept occupy a zero value island.

KJF is VERY dice sensitive… every single unit variation, plus or minus, has MASSIVE implications for the game.  And since it is more dice sensitive than is KGF, it is more risky.

[Jennifer]

The problem with most people’s KJF is they think they need transport trains.

America needs 1 transport, which, coincidentally, it starts with. :P  1 Transport + 4 Fighters + 1 Battleship can get enough troops to just about any island in the Pacific and win.  After attrition hits you, then you might have to go back, but by then, hopefully, you have Japan pretty well boxed in.

Also, please note that the allies do not ever have to attack the Japanese fleet.  Japan has to attack the allies, or suffer letting them take islands with impunity and then be forced, themselves, to take them back.  And believe me, if I get E. Indies or Borneo with America, I’m parking my fleet there, putting up an IC and then building next door to Japan.

The only place the Allies pretty much have to attack is Manchuria, Kwangtung and FIC.  But those are relatively easy attacks when the allies are mustered there.

[cyan]

@Cmdr:

The problem with most people’s KJF is they think they need transport trains.

America needs 1 transport, which, coincidentally, it starts with. :P  1 Transport + 4 Fighters + 1 Battleship can get enough troops to just about any island in the Pacific and win.

I personally like 2 trns for america ( hence me saying before to buy 1 ac, 1 trn ,1 sub ) that way you have slightly more units and a little more prepered. but I already said Japan can just crush america’s navy whenever it comes close to Japan.

[Guest]

And when Japan attacks your fleet en masse with what ends up being a hell of a strafe after your lose the TRNs, what do you use to keep advancing?