What should Japan do in a KJF game?

[losttribe04]

@Perry:

Japan starts out with a major fleet advantage VS the US. Make sure you buy some fleet every turn, while still buying some land units (50/50 split might work), and you’ll find that US will be unable to make a viable push into the Pac until US5 or US6 or so.

By that time, Germany have made headway vs Russia.

DON’T bother adding units to the Islands! That has to be one of the worse moves possible in A&A. In the line of buying navy with Russia  :-D :-D :-D

My logic for that was when the US does get around to the pacific they island hop.  The UK and Russia take mainland Asia.  This leaves Japan with Japan proper and only 8 IPC’s.

Would you consider buying a second IC on one of those island to have two points to drop ships into the water?

[squirecam]

Would you consider buying a second IC on one of those island to have two points to drop ships into the water?

In a KJF game?

No.

[squirecam]

@LT04:

1. buy FTR’s and BMR’s.  They can out maneuver the US navy and defend islands before they can get to them. They can also run strafe attacks.  1 for 1 Japan would do to bad. Yeah the US may choose to loose subs (10 IPC FTR vs 8 IPC SUB) but then the next cheapest navy unit would be other FTR’s.  (I took Transports out of the running b/c they should have units on board.  This would bring the value up from 8 to a min. of 14 with 2 INF)

Too much IPC. You only get 3 fighters or 2 bombers for your 30 IPC. And with no troops, you lose the mainland much faster than normal.

And what strafe? USA screens with 1 sub and moves to Solomons. You just lost all your air against the USA Fleet. USA is never going to spread out for you. They are going to mass and move.

Buying a fighter or 2 later on is not a horrible idea. Buying them R1-3, especialy when you need troops too, is.

[shermantank]

What’s really the point of buying an IC in the islands? Sure it’s safe from attack, but here’s the problems of an island build:
1. It is too far away from the action, and by the time the units built were viable, japan may have fallen already.
2. You only can place 1 unit on that place. If you’re Japan, you need somewhere where you can mobilize more units at one time.
3. Japan needs to solidify a foothold on Asia so it can have an effective income base if and when the KJF ploys are utilized. Having an IC on the mainland (Manchuria or Kwangtung) makes a Japanese defense more viable against UK and USSR attacks.

[losttribe04]

@shermantank:

What’s really the point of buying an IC in the islands? Sure it’s safe from attack, but here’s the problems of an island build:…

2. You only can place 1 unit on that place. If you’re Japan, you need somewhere where you can mobilize more units at one time…

That’s why I suggested  E. Indies, Borneo or Philippines. They all get a 3 or 4 build.

[AxisOfEvil]

You absolutely dont want to build island ICs that you now have to defend against a building US navy.

Also, Why do we give Asia to UK and Russia? Thats a big mistake. I would still land grab normally in Asia. The difference i would make is, instead of buuilding an IC in India, I would build it in a defendable position, like manchuria.

[losttribe04]

@AxisOfEvil:

You absolutely dont want to build island ICs that you now have to defend against a building US navy.

Also, Why do we give Asia to UK and Russia? Thats a big mistake. I would still land grab normally in Asia. The difference i would make is, instead of buuilding an IC in India, I would build it in a defendable position, like manchuria.

What about FIC?  It’s still 1 transport move away and gives you a wider base w/o sacrificing Japan’s ability to reach it.

LT

[AxisOfEvil]

@LT04:

@AxisOfEvil:

You absolutely dont want to build island ICs that you now have to defend against a building US navy.

Also, Why do we give Asia to UK and Russia? Thats a big mistake. I would still land grab normally in Asia. The difference i would make is, instead of buuilding an IC in India, I would build it in a defendable position, like manchuria.

What about FIC?  It’s still 1 transport move away and gives you a wider base w/o sacrificing Japan’s ability to reach it.

LT

You can prob defend FIC fairly well. Its in range of your navy and AF. But Id be concerned about advancing troops from Indias direction. Manchuria and Kwang-Tung are easier to defend. The closer you get to mainland Japan, the easier to defend.

[losttribe04]

I guess I could see why every one says buy 3 transports your first turn instead of an IC.  If they are going after Germany first Japan might want to put thier mainland IC in India since they would be on the advance.  But if they need to defend they would want it closer to be able to reach it better.

Hmmm… How profound, yet simple.

Manchuria would be best then Japan would only need to defend two SZ’s then (The ones that border Japan proper.)

[AxisOfEvil]

that is definitely one of the reasons to build transports at first with japan. Another is flexilbilty. transports are much more flexible than ICs. But the best reason, you want to ramp up to max production as fast as you can with japan. So you need a min of 4 transports on the mainland to transport your 8 units max per turn. I like 5 transports before my first IC build, as I use at least one to grab islands with/ or retake islands from UK/US.

[Jennifer]

If I bought a second IC with Japan, in a KJF game, it would be in Manchuria where it can be easily supported.  Maybe Kwangtung.

And while 4 IPC (+4 Japan, -4 USA) may not sound like much, remember that every one counts.  Also, Japan can easily increase their defensive power significantly with a single Aircraft Carrier purchase. (6 Fighters at sea instead of 4.)

But also keep in mind, the idea is to SLOW America down, not to STOP America.  You just want to make America hesitate long enough to break Russia.

[losttribe04]

@Cmdr:

If I bought a second IC with Japan, in a KJF game, it would be in Manchuria where it can be easily supported.  Maybe Kwangtung.

And while 4 IPC (+4 Japan, -4 USA) may not sound like much, remember that every one counts.  Also, Japan can easily increase their defensive power significantly with a single Aircraft Carrier purchase. (6 Fighters at sea instead of 4.)

But also keep in mind, the idea is to SLOW America down, not to STOP America.  You just want to make America hesitate long enough to break Russia.

Kwangtung would be the better place.  I say that b/c that is a VT.  If you need troops massed quickly to defend it why not have them home grown.

[Crazy Ivan]

IMO, if I’m playing Japan and it is looking like a KJF coming, I buy a carrier and 3 subs to add to my combined fleet in front of Japan when the US/UK fleets are two sea zones away. I don’t build any more expesive ICs, but use my 4 transports to feed troops into Manchuria.

But, to get back to the ORIGINAL TOPIC, As the German player, I know the pressure is off of me to defend, so I buy more tanks than normal and press hard on Russia, because someone has to  :wink:

[Jennifer]

@LT04:

@Cmdr:

If I bought a second IC with Japan, in a KJF game, it would be in Manchuria where it can be easily supported.  Maybe Kwangtung.

And while 4 IPC (+4 Japan, -4 USA) may not sound like much, remember that every one counts.  Also, Japan can easily increase their defensive power significantly with a single Aircraft Carrier purchase. (6 Fighters at sea instead of 4.)

But also keep in mind, the idea is to SLOW America down, not to STOP America.  You just want to make America hesitate long enough to break Russia.

Kwangtung would be the better place.  I say that b/c that is a VT.  If you need troops massed quickly to defend it why not have them home grown.

Because Manchuria is close to Buryatia which is where the bulk of your forces will be landing, probably.

But Kwangtung would be fine.  FIC not so good because it’s now very out of the way.

[Magister]

Often US starts KJF after seeing Japan build 2 factories instead of transports (if UK ‘exploded’ and threatens all seas early). Japan should NOT spend on factories after seeing a clear KJF (big US naval build), but the one in Indochina is still nice to have. Can retreat the fleet in front of it and keep it growing, while threatening any landings on richest islands.

“Japan builds fleet” - OK, but what kind of fleet ?

1. Offensive -many subs; extra fighters for land-carrier doubling
2. Defensive - groups of 2fighters, carrier(s)
3. Free strafing - battleships, but in one big battle least effective for the $.

Also, what is Japan to do in this case ?

• Main US fleet (+some UK remnants) advances to Solomons sz; sacrificial sub covering NW of it (Wake sz).
  Japanese air alone is not enough to defeat it, and next turn whole Jap fleet cannot defeat it with added US reinforcements.

[Trusty Sapper]

Thoughts on KJF

Despite the initial advantage of having remaining fleet after Pearl Harbour its v. difficult for Japan.
If you push hard on land, the US fleet quickly outnumbers you at sea. If you throw everything into the Pacific, you never make up the income deficit you start the game with and its only a matter of time before a massive sea battle takes you out.

On the plus side, while Japan is struggling to get by Germany may be doing well- as Jennifer says; if all you do is slow the US, the Germans may get to Moscow in time.

The single worst thing that can happen is that Tokyo comes under siege since then you have to waste IPCs building inf there. So you have to match US naval build, exploiting the defender advantage enjoyed by carriers and FTRs.

Given Japan is poorer than the US you have to make savings somehow and the obvious one is to use island inf for your mainland campaign instead of  buying them. So build a bunch of TRNs and start getting them to the mainland asap, Once the US is strong enough to get past the Jap fleet  then it wont make much difference whether there’s inf on them or not.

Because its so slow getting them over you probably wont make any headway in Asia if the Allies put an IC in Calcutta or Singkaing and you’ll start to shrink if they put both ICs there.

If you can grab Calcutta early enough to stop an IC build that helps because then you either get a clear run at Asia or face US IC build which detracts from their Naval effort. On the other hand, letting the Brits build 3 inf a go in Calcutta does detract from any bothersome behaviour around German shores, allowing a straightforward infantry push at Moscow which if done efficiently is going to win eventually. Of course Tokyo may fall soon afterwards…

If you play with the enhanced rules then the Banzai national advantage, Russian-Japan treaty, US reinforced carriers Tokyo Express and Yamamoto battleships change things a bit.

Trusty

[Magister]

Yes, the “UK-India and US-Sinkiang factories” is a separate variant of KJF, deserving separate analysis. I’ve seen the analysis on CaspianSub how J can prepare for a huge T3 offensive to retake India (going up to building bombers on J2, and temporarily giving up Manchuria and even Kwangtung if Russians approach), so UK should not do this.

But then cannot see how J can keep at bay the US fleet soon nearing their islands… necessarily a weaker US fleet, since if the Sinkiang factory is built then it must build troops, right ?

I also remember some games started as feigned KJF (1UK ‘explosion’, UK+US factories) but continued as normal KGF (no more US Pacific fleet), still seriously bottlenecking early J income and options, so that J was no threat to Russian income until turn 8 at least.

[Jennifer]

@Magister:

Often US starts KJF after seeing Japan build 2 factories instead of transports (if UK ‘exploded’ and threatens all seas early). Japan should NOT spend on factories after seeing a clear KJF (big US naval build), but the one in Indochina is still nice to have. Can retreat the fleet in front of it and keep it growing, while threatening any landings on richest islands.

To expand on this thought:

KJF can be EXTREMELY deadly to the Axis.  Who cares if Germany gets Russia if England still has Africa (easy to do) and America has taken out Japan (not easy, but can be done without too much effort if you know what you are doing.)

Because Japan faces a triple threat at the start of the game and a double threat from then on, I often times find KJF the easier path for the allies.  As such, I generally play Japan “conservatively” on Japan 1.

I like to hit Pearl either EXTREMELY hard or not at all. (If England has their ships massed in SZ 59 or something, and I can destroy them and a fighter of theirs, then I go there instead of pearl, otherwise, anything that can get to Pearl goes to Pearl in an effort to win without a single loss.)

This causes America to give up any plans of KJF.  Because America HAS to build in the East, there is no point in using 3 rounds to get to the West.

But, this almost requires Japan to not build any industries on Japan 1.  And why should you?  Until you have 33 IPC and 5 Transports a round, there is no point in getting that complex, in my opinion. (11 Units - Japan 8, Manch/Kwang/FIC 3 cost a minimum of 33 IPC.)  However, 32 IPC can easily go to 4 Infantry, 4 Armor filling up Japan itself and using 4 transports while you clear islands with the others.

Just my opinion anyway.

BTW, if England and Russia move like KJF is happening, I like to build two bombers with Japan.  This gives me an incredibly powerful attack force to hit SZ 55. (You have to attack Hawaii with Inf, Arm, Fig on Japan 1 to get it to work though.)

[DarthMaximus]

@Cmdr:

This causes America to give up any plans of KJF.  Because America HAS to build in the East, there is no point in using 3 rounds to get to the West.

Not necessarly. 
US Buys 2 AC, 1 ftr.
Japan’s Pearl fleet won’t attack 1 trn, 1 dd, 2 ac, 4 ftrs, 1 bb

Or US buys 1 ac, 1 bb and Japan faces
1 trn, 1 dd, 1 ac, 2 ftrs, 2 bb

The US can afford to trade fleets early, they earn 40 Japan earns 30.  Not too mention ftrs and ACs are better on defense.

Unless you actually took HI on J1 as well, but that is seriously stretching considered the likely UK1 moves.

And if Japan loses its sub either on UK 1 or the Pearl attack, there is pretty much nothing they can do to prevent the US from going after them.  I’m not saying they (the US) should go KJF or that the US will win, just that Japan can’t prevent the US naval buy if they choose to go that route.

IMO, it is one of the strengths of the Allies.  You don’t really have to show your cards to the Axis until after US1/R2, but by that time (hopefully) the Axis have spent a 1 turn build and NCM preparing for KGF only to see a KJF come at them.

[Jennifer]

@DarthMaximus:

@Cmdr:

This causes America to give up any plans of KJF.  Because America HAS to build in the East, there is no point in using 3 rounds to get to the West.

Not necessarly. 
US Buys 2 AC, 1 ftr.
Japan’s Pearl fleet won’t attack 1 trn, 1 dd, 2 ac, 4 ftrs, 1 bb

I would with 6 Fighters, 3 Bombers, 2 Battleships, Destroyer, Submarine and 2 Carriers, DM.

That’s why I mentioned you may want to hit Hawaii so you could have the LZ for the fighters and bombers. ^_^