Re: Original Post:
If Japan skips hitting the Hawaiian Islands fleet, US has a lot of potential attacks on the coast; at the very least, US can use that fighter early in Asia or Europe.
Re: KJF:
There are slow and fast variations of KJF - fast and slow, but neither is particularly effective if the Axis player responds appropriately.
The slow variation goes something like this - push Japan off the Asian coast with Russia, while US kills the Pacific fleet. UK supports Russia in Europe.
The fast variation goes something like this - Sinkiang IC / India IC, then UK ground from India plus UK air, Russian ground, and US fleet all push in on Japan.
In both variations, what the Allies are planning is pretty clear; the Allies have to move around to set up their KJF plan. That movement always weakens the Russian-German front, and is sometimes not too effective, as Japan has a lot of flexibility that it can use to punish the Allies.
SLOW:
With the slow variation, Japan can use fighters and subs to stall out the US fleet in the Pacific while maintaining the ability to trade coastal territories. Transports can dump Japanese infantry anywhere along the coast, making it very hard for the Allies to fortify any single territory.
The Russians run into a major problem in that Russian infantry need to march from Russia-Novosibirsk-China-Sinkiang-coast; a five turn delay. (Much more favorable is Caucasus-Ukraine or Russia-West Russia-Eastern Front with a one or two turn delay). How bad is that, really? It’s like four entire turns worth of production lost just because those infantry aren’t contributing much while they’re marching to the coast.
In contrast, Japan’s logistics are much EASIER, as the Allies march right into their mouths. Japan-coast, a single turn.
Then add in the fact that it’s very difficult for the Allies to redirect their attacks, while Japan has no such difficulties. Suppose the Allies decide to push in at Buryatia in the north. Then Japan could steal a march and push in on India to the south. After all, Japan can afford to lose the Pacific Coast if it means Japan and Germany combined can smash Caucasus and Russia in the meantime.
Russia can compensate by building expensive tanks and fighters for better response time, but when considering that they also need to fend the Germans off, it becomes a very nasty battle.
FAST:
Japan’s first friend against a fast industrial complex-supported KJF is the dice. A few bad dice rolls on the part of the Allies can mean the Allies got smoked right away. Particularly, if UK attacks French Indochina and fails, and the German-UK battle in Anglo-Egypt (both the initial German attack and the UK counter). But let’s say the dice are not too bad, and that the Sinkiang/IC plan goes off.
Japan’s second friend is that the typical IC plan calls for a UK IC on India and a US IC on Sinkiang. Rather than two points of attack AGAINST Japan, those ICs become targets FOR Japan, with the added bonus that trying to fortify both severely weakens Moscow. The Allies then need to protect three targets; Moscow, India, and Sinkiang. Germany presses towards Moscow while Japan builds up at French Indochina. If the Allies continue to fortify India and Sinkiang heavily, Moscow will be in danger. If the Allies retreat from India or Sinkiang, the Japanese move in and have a ready-built industrial complex ready to use on their next round. That wouldn’t be so bad if Japan could be counterattacked, but Japan has a lot of room for allowing the Allies to advance. It doesn’t matter if Japan loses the entire Pacific coast if Moscow falls while Japan keeps its air force and a strong grip on Tokyo.
–
All this isn’t to say that KJF is awful, or even “incorrect”. But I definitely consider KJF to be an uphill battle. I consider KGF to offer the Allies far better flexibility and concentration of force.
If the Axis mess up, or have super awful rolls, then sure, KJF. But otherwise I would stick with KGF.
