When should the Allies try a KJF?

@Hobbes:

Bunnies tried his KJF on me yesterday, using the Indian IC. He managed to kick the Japanese out of Asia and to sink their fleet, but Russia falls on round 5 (or would have, if I hadn’t lost a 94% battle). He then start popping UK and US ICs on Asia and since Germany decided to have a Pacific fleet (based on the assumption that Russia would fall on round 5) the Allies outproduced the Axis.

It was a fun game but I still don’t believe the Indian IC because Bunnies had to use a lot of Russian units to defend it/attack the Japs on FIC and I could have made things harder for the Allies with Japan on Asia. The end result will be Caucasus falling on round 4 then Russia on 5/6. After that the Germans simply have to go after India. Unless the Germans botch up their attack on Russia.

I’m still looking at the different options listed above and I’m actually trying to create some sort of a flowchart for round 1 to help the Allies determine if they should go KJF or not.

I don’t feel that I have a good grasp on the Allies.  For KGF, I get the feeling that I’m missing some key line of play, and I’m pretty awful at KJF, because I’ve never practiced or developed my KJF games.  So when Hobbes says there were weak points to the KJF play that I did, he’s perfectly correct in terms of what he had to face.  But I think it’s possible that if I developed the lines of play that KJF might be much stronger.

On the other hand, as Hobbes wrote, he could have done things differently as well.  Besides which, Hobbes did fail the high percentage attack on Moscow, and although he didn’t mention it, a lot of small important battles went my way as well, which is very important.  So perhaps KJF IS a doomed line of play after all.  I can’t say a very luck-sacky game speaks well to the validity of a strategy.  But we’ll see.

A few comments -

One thing I’ve always maintained is that protecting a UK IC on India means giving up Moscow.  Hobbes comments that Russia falls, but I think that’s a foregone conclusion with an India IC.  (The idea of the India IC is to push the clock forwards on the US KJF plan to the degree that the Allies can afford to let Moscow fall.  But it is quite possible the Germany grabs Moscow earlier than the Allies can afford, which means eight German tanks racing towards India a turn.)

In game, Hobbes made a comment about taking and holding Karelia on G1.  I think, on reflection, that following a R1 WR/UKR attack, that Germany can take and hold Karelia regardless of the Russian build, if it abandons Norway.

The conditions for a KJF India IC plan were NOT favorable when I committed.  I led with a West Russia/Ukraine attack with a Russian fighter landing on India and another Russian fighter to Kazakh, with 6 Russian infantry on Buryatia.  Hobbes followed with a 5 infantry 5 tank build on G1 consolidation to Karelia using the German Atlantic sub against UK’s East Canada transport, and hit Anglo-Egypt with at least 1 German tank surviving, landing fighter and bomber on Libya to forestall UK fighter and bomber landing in Africa (after hitting Anglo-Egypt or after attacking the German battleship).  Also I ended up NOT sending the UK bomber to points east in Russia or sending the UK fighter to land in Buryatia.  This gave Japan more freedom on its J1 build, which made a big difference.

Consolidation to Karelia means Russia’s contained early, and having a tank at Anglo-Egypt meant UK’s income would be cut early.  These are both unfavorable conditions to an India IC, even more so when taken together.

If I remember right, I attacked French Indochina with 3 infantry 1 fighter, used the cruiser to hunt the Japanese transport at Kwangtung (if the Jap transport at Kwangtung doesn’t die, it can hit India.)  In retrospect, I probably should have done a small attack into Anglo-Egypt to stop the tank blitz, and I have to take another look at the odds on the French Indochina attack.

The theory behind the India IC is -

Japan has a lot of options, but the India IC, Buryatia Russian 6 infantry stack, and 2 Russian infantry on Sinkiang combine pressure.  I think the strongest counter goes something like -

Japan hits Pearl Harbor with sub, cruiser, fighter, and bomber, moving East Indies battleship and carrier to New Guinea to pick up the fighter from the Hawaiian Islands battle.  Japan hits China with the infantry from Manchuria and 1 infantry from Kwangtung plus air.  The remaining infantry move to French Indochina along with the Caroline Islands carrier and Japan battleship and transport, ending the turn with 5 infantry 1 tank on French Indochina.  Russia ends up able to grab Manchuria, but that can’t be helped.

Japan has 7 infantry 1 tank (2 from East Indies), 5 fighters, and a bomber that can hit India on J2, or 2 battleships 2 carriers 6 fighters and a bomber against an Indian fleet.  These are simultaneous threats.

UK can choose one or the other - sea or land.  If defending at sea, UK has sub, 2 destroyer, 2 carrier, 4 fighter (1 Russian).  If on land, 7 infantry (5 UK 2 Russian) 3-5 fighters (3 UK 2 Russian) plus UK’s 3 units it can build plus Russian tanks.

BUT

IF Japan prepared a fleet to smash a potential UK fleet at India, then Japan’s J2 reinforcement of French Indochina will be weakened.  (Japan can’t move its battleships and AC to hit India and also build enough defensive fleet to easily handle a UK fighter and bomber, unless it skips on some transports - and skipping transports means less reinforcement to French Indochina on J2).

IF Japan did NOT prepare its fleet to smash a potential UK fleet at India, UK just builds a fleet at India.

SO

One way or the other, UK should be able to pull some tricks, and the UK IC should last until at least UK3, which means there should be time for the Allies to pull some shenanigans.  Unspecified shenanigans, but I get the feeling something should be possible with all the small potential pressures that Japan faces.  Japan’s pushing on any of those - Buryatia-Manchuria, or China-Asian coast, or potential UK fleet at India, or the US fleet in the Pacific, means that the Allies can push on the other fronts.

@Hobbes:

I’m starting to get back to the thought that KJF is too dependent on dice results and player mistakes to work, specially on the first round. I’m trying to correlate all of the possible outcomes/moves from round 1 but to me some of them are less than optimal moves, like a USSR1 sub buy or the Indian IC.
Most of those options will benefit Germany one way or the other… which seems to be the whole problem for KJF… its a lot easier to let Russia fall to Japan while taking Germany than having Germany taking Russia while conquering Asia.

I would put a R1 sub buy and a UK1 India IC in different categories, because I am pretty convinced there are enough German options to compensate for a R1 sub buy, but I am not convinced Japan has enough tricks to overcome a UK1 India IC.  It could easily be that Hobbes has done a more complete assessment or has a better intuitive understanding, though.

I haven’t seen strong players use KJF, but I get the feeling there’s a lot of small tricks in there.

For example, in a KGF, the Axis typically want Japan to control Caucasus if possible, because Japan has the numbers to take on the combined Allied defense at Moscow, while Germany’s numbers are depleted by trading with the Allies and maintaining defense.  (That’s small trick #1, controlling Caucasus with Japan).  The Axis can try to force this by pushing Germany to West Russia.  Even if Russia obliterates the Germans, that often depletes them to the point that Japan can capture Caucasus in force, after which ideally the Allies can do nothing about Japan’s holding Caucasus and Japan uses that to crack Moscow.  (That’s small trick #2, using Germany to force the issue to create an opening for Japan).  But maybe the Allies have enough power so they could obliterate West Russia without suffering much losses; that would let them push Japan out of Caucasus later.  But Japan can increase the power of Germany’s position at West Russia by landing Japanese fighters on West Russia (that’s small trick #3, using Jap fighters to reinforce German positions).  Etc. etc. etc.  So many small things that add up to a decent Axis plan.

On the other hand, most Axis players just ram tanks at the Allies and hope something cracks.  Which is the difference between strong and weak play, the lack of small tricks (or small devices or whatever you want to call them) that improve the Axis game.

Since I haven’t used or thought about KJF much or seen strong players use a lot of these “small devices”, I get the feeling that my KJF game is quite undeveloped.  Oh, sure, I know major stuff like using German fighter to stop US destroyer blocks, and not to buy any ICs with Japan (using the IPCs for infantry/fleet/air instead).  But what about the rest of the plan?

For example, UK starts with a transport in Australia.  Supposing UK lost income in Africa, would it be feasible to use a UK fighter and infantry to take control of high IPC islands like Borneo, East Indies, and Phillipines?  Even so, where should the Allies divide territory control between US and UK?  US will want at least one high IPC income island for an island industrial complex to shorten logistic lines to the area, and US can use high income to push more air/navy against Japan.  But UK will want to compensate for lost income in Africa, and needs to maintain a certain income so once Russia falls (if it falls), UK can maintain defense against Germany.  Then there’s the question of coastal industrial complexes for the Allies; if the tide is in Germany’s favor against Russia, coastal industrial complexes are a bad investment for the Allies because with German forces at China, Germany can strike into any one of those ICs.  Once Germany maintains control of a coastal IC, it can provide naval/air support to Japan very quickly.  What is best, and when and why?

I’m sure I won’t be publishing an article any time soon on a UK1 India IC for KJF, but maybe I’ll put up a post with some of the stuff I’ve looked at.

Earlier I wrote that the German/Russian situation in Karelia/West Russia and the German/UK situation at Anglo-Egypt were important to the decision of whether to build a UK India IC or not.

If the Germans hit West Russia on G1, they’re keeping Russia on its heels economically (conversely, Germany is that much stronger).

Having the Germans consolidate at Karelia on G1 (2 inf from W Eur, 3 from Norway, 2 from Eastern Europe, 3 from Belorussia, 2 tanks from Germany, 1 from Balkans, 1 from Eastern Europe, total 10 infantry 4 tanks) threatens about the same thing, specifically German attack on West Russia on G2 (the Karelia units plus 2 tanks from Eastern Europe that started in Western Europe on G1 - the Southern Europe tank often used against R1 control of Ukraine), plus 4-6 odd German fighters plus German bomber.

UK fighters on West Russia is important in the second case, and quick UK support via transport is important in the first case, so Germany can’t hold Karelia and cripple Russia’s economy.

The German situation in Anglo-Egypt is similar.  If UK allows Germany to hold Anglo-Egypt on G1, on G2 Germany can blitz a tank through Africa for 2 more IPC per turn and 2 less to UK a turn.  This is unlikely to be countered by the Allies, as the US1 cruiser/2 transports are probably dead if they dropped to Algeria on US1, or even if they headed south to Brazil, because of the German subs that should be in the Atlantic.  Particularly in a KJF situation, the Allies will probably not drop to Africa (US will be busy with Pacific, and UK will either be dropping to Europe or supporting its India IC, plus which UK dropping to the south of Africa requires two moves via transport, then there’s two moves back before the UK transports can threaten anything like Western Europe again, which slows the Allies a lot.

Plus there’s the fact that another UK fighter is on Anglo-Egypt.  If the UK fighter dies, UK has 3 fighters and Russia 2, which makes for a maximum of 2 carriers 2 destroyers 4 fighters 1 sub at India on UK2.  (Or 1 destroyer 1 battleship instead of 2 destroyers).  UK could go all in on carriers, and do 3 carriers 1 destroyer 5 fighters 1 sub instead - much more expensive, but possibly not that worthwhile.  But with a 4th UK fighter, it’s possible to bring the fleet to 3 carriers 1 destroyer 6 fighters 1 sub instead.  That sixth fighter makes the fleet much much scarier and interesting.

That is, if the Germans hit West Russia or fortify Karelia on G1, or if UK does not plan to retake a German-held Anglo-Egypt on UK1, a India IC is probably not best.

If G stacks Karelia with units from Norway, they either did not hit SZ2 or lost the fig+bomber. Otherwise they would need some protection.
Anyways this would invite to a KGF IMO, either to exploit that G is unable to hit an allied atlantic fleet, or simply to assist USSR asap (since as Bunnies stated they are on their heels).

Duh, forgot to select 6 INF on Buryata :/

I don’t consider 6 infantry on Buryatia to mean much unless there’s a fighter there as well.

Japan can send 3 inf 1 tank 3 fighter 1 battleship bombard there while still having 5 infantry 2 fighter for China and 1 sub 1 cruiser 1 fighter 1 bomber for the US Hawaiian Islands fleet.

UK may have taken preventative measures by attacking French Indochina, but that has its own set of drawbacks for the Allies, as do various moves Russia and UK may make in the India-Africa region.

@Bunnies:

I don’t consider 6 infantry on Buryatia to mean much unless there’s a fighter there as well.

Japan can send 3 inf 1 tank 3 fighter 1 battleship bombard there while still having 5 infantry 2 fighter for China and 1 sub 1 cruiser 1 fighter 1 bomber for the US Hawaiian Islands fleet.

UK may have taken preventative measures by attacking French Indochina, but that has its own set of drawbacks for the Allies, as do various moves Russia and UK may make in the India-Africa region.

With 6 inf on Bury there is a 45% chance that 3 inf 1 tank 3 fig 1 BB will suffer 4 hits or more.

So it is a risky battle for Japan on J1. Landing the UK India fig there is of course a viable option, but it also makes it unable to participate in combat on UK1 (it can take out the lone Japan transporter).

A succesfull FIC attack forces Japan to choose between China, Bury and sz52 (and recapturing FIC). But FIC only makes sense if Bury was stacked IMO.

@ Hobbes

Have you come any closer to a viable KJF strategy in A&A42?

I find it very difficult to think of a scenario, where KJF is feasible, and basically it requires bad Axis play or lucky dice to win with this strategy.

But in order for the game to remain interesting, I think it is necessary to have alternative strategies.

It’s not that I have a whole lot of experience at the game, but from a general strategic point of view, I’m a little surprised at the options offered for Germany in the poll, because all of them are possibilities that seem suboptimal for Germany.

My reasoning is:

1. There seems to be a consensus that overall, “Kill Germany First” (KGF) is a more promising Allied strategy than “Kill Japan First” (KJF).
2. If Germany doesn’t do very well in round 1 (for instance, because several of the options mentioned in the poll, actually happened), then it stands to reason that KGF becomes even more promising. So why go KJF in that case?
3. Conversely, if Germany is very successful (as in: destroying the SZ2 UK fleet; inflicting heavy losses on Russia; taking Egypt with strong forces remaining), then KGF would become more difficult.
4. The situation that then exists, on the UK’s first turn, may indicate that KJF could be a viable alternative as compared to the KGF possibilities that remain.

So basically, I would consider KJF only when the Allies ended up in a situation where it looks better than KGF.

1.  My opinion is that it isn’t so much that KGF is more promising than KJF.  It’s that there’s more documentation and practice on how to go KGF than KJF, especially for later rounds of play, so players tend to favor KGF.

2.  There’s a novelty value in some strategies.  The novelty factor appeals to players that don’t want to do the same KGF plan they’ve used for the past few games.  The value factor comes from opponents that do not respond appropriately to the novel strategy.

3.  It isn’t so much a matter of KGF being more or less difficult that determine whether KJF is viable or not.  I think there are certain key factors that determine whether or not KJF is feasible.

One key in my opinion is Africa.  Germany’s in ideal position to attack Africa with a quick offload from Southern Europe.  The earlier and more Germany puts in Africa, the more the Allies will need to counter; if the Allies don’t counter, Germany maintains a high income while UK’s income is slashed.

There’s a huge bag of tricks the Allies can use in Africa/India, most of which I have not seen in serious play or discussed recently.

4.  The real decision on KJF is made on US1 unit placement phase, no earlier.  Sure, there are indicators of whether KGF or KJF is favored in earlier rounds, but it comes down to in the end where US decides to place its US1 buy.

–

I mentioned earlier (maybe another thread) that I think there’s two ways to go KJF.

1.  UK India fleet.  Optimistically, the Jap fleet is forced into battle or at least is completely locked out of the Pacific very quickly.  Russia collapses like a house of cards.  The Allies take control of all the island income from Japan.  US can maintain a flow of infantry into Soviet Far East and Buryatia from Alaska.  Once Moscow falls, Germany has a huge invasion threat against London that must be guarded against.  Otherwise, Germany takes control of the Suez Canal and tries to unify with the Japanese fleet to start pushing the Allies out of the Pacific, also trying to push the Allies off the Asian coast to regain Japan’s income, while surviving Russians ally with UK/US forces in the area.

2.  UK reinforcement to Europe.  Russia is used to keep control of Africa out of German hands.  Germans take control of Caucasus around G3-4, reinforced by Japanese fighters, while UK starts dropping reinforcements to Archangel/Karelia.

@Hobbes:

My last game the Allied player tried to pull it off, since G didn’t attack Egypt on G1. UK with 1 AC, 1 CA, 1 DD and 2 FTRs. I attacked it on J1 with 1 AC, 1 BB and 4 FTRs and still did the Pearl attack and China.

That isn’t like the setup I had in mind at all.  UK shouldn’t leave a fleet in range of a J1 attack, particularly the Japanese battleship, for precisely the reason that you described.

Thank you for the responses, gentlemen.

I’m afraid that my primary approach to this game, or any game, is aimed at winning it. So when a situation arises where a certain strategy looks good, I will pursue that strategy, even if it’s the same strategy as in earlier games. Case in point: when certain events have occurred that seem to weaken the German position (be it through their own choices or through misfortune), then this would encourage me to try KGF, rather than look the other way. Maybe my point of view would be a different one if I had played the game more often, but generally speaking I’m not adverse to a quick win.

On the other hand, if it is indeed true that KJF is not necessarily more promising than KJF, but merely the better explored option, than that would be excellent news, and an indicator that the game is fairly well balanced and that more than one strategy is viable. So it’s good that this thread exists for doing some of that exploring.

I tend to agree that going KJF all-out on UK1 would be too early, but if I believed that the circumstances were favorable to a KJF strategy (quite apart from what those circumstances would be), then I would at least try to purchase units that I could use in KJF while not being entirely useless in KGF either. An India IC on UK1 would be too much of a commitment before Japan has moved, but I’d consider buying at least one fighter and some ground forces, and postpone Atlantic fleet purchases.

Africa – I agree that you wouldn’t want that entire continent firmly in German hands for the remainder of the game, but I suppose that you can still try to sink the German Mediterranean fleet early while aiming for KJF as a general strategy. With no more German forces going to Africa, it wouldn’t be too much of a drain on Allied resources to counter what’s already there.

So, in general terms, if Germany looks strong after its first round, I would lean towards KJF as the UK, without fully committing to it. Then, suppose that Japan would be less successful in its first round, the decision could be finalized on US1.

In chess, some moves, such as castling, capturing en passant, and moving pawns forward two squares instead of one, are fairly recent innovations.

In the game of Go, komi is now almost universally accepted, though it did not start to become standardized until around eighty years ago.

When the rules change, new lines of thought are necessary to find the best lines of play.

–

But even when the rules do not change, the perception of what the “best line of play” is still changes.

The rules of chess haven’t changed for about five hundred years.  But the popularity of the King’s Gambit has waxed and waned over time.  A few hundred years ago, it was thought of as one of White’s better options, sacrificing a single pawn to give White a lot of early tempo and attack openings.  Later, though, more extensive analyses showed Black to be able to defend its position with accurate play, but also that Black would often have to give up a pawn in return, balancing the material.

What was once considered a flashy but still powerful and dangerous attack is now simply one of a series of openings/systems (such as the Ruy Lopez/Spanish game, the Stonewall Attack, etc. etc.) that high level players must be prepared to face.

–

Using the King’s Gambit against high level players will probably not result in any particular advantage.  In fact, if the player using the King’s Gambit has not studied the analyses thoroughly, it could very well be that the opponent will have the advantage.

But a player that has studied the King’s Gambit can do quite well with it against low to intermediate level players that have not studied the King’s Gambit.

–

The King’s Gambit sums up how I currently feel about KJF, and a lot of other lines of play in Axis and Allies.  It’s less about “right” and “wrong” than it is about having a wide arsenal of strategies and tactics that can potentially see an opponent unprepared.

If you’re a intermediate chess player that has thoroughly studied and prepared for the Ruy Lopez, you could still be caught off guard by the Sicilian Defense.

Advanced chess players study the Ruy Lopez, the Sicilian Defense, the Caro-Kann, and all sorts of other openings, so they don’t get caught unprepared.

@Bunnies

I fully agree with the chess analogy.
The best strategy will change over time, even though A&A has less possibilities for variants than chess IMO.

HKL brings up the dilemma of the UK1 commitment.
Buying an IC and placing it on India UK1 is the point of no return, and gives Japan full knowledge of what the Allies strategy is.
Waiting untill UK2 with the India IC is very difficult. Since this would mean India is missing the units from the UK2 (and UK3) purchase.

I was hoping that Hobbes with his KJF analysis, could come with a suggestion on what to do (or not to do).
Is an India IC in general poor play?
Is it possible to wait one round - maybe buying air UK1 and still establish the IC?
Should an India IC be used to build up a UK navy in the Indian Ocean to join with a US Pacific Fleet?
Or should the IC produce ground units and try to push Japan of the Asian mainland, along with UK air from London?
Which UK1 attacks supports this strategy the best (Egypt or FIC, Bury stack etc.)?
How should the US build up a strong pacific navy fast enough to come to aid?