Good stuff. A few comments before I go out and I may have a few more later.
-In a dedicated “KJF”, I’m not sure its wise to retreat the Siberians as you do here. Perhaps it’s a better move to move them to Amur right off the bat and hope Japan attacks. I realize you probably won’t be able to land in Korea until USA4 at the earliest and that’s a long time for the Siberians to be waiting. Still, getting Japan to attack that stack early or divert resources to contain it could reap rewards.
-I can see why you prefer a J3 declaration considering the way you have planes arrayed to prevent a stack on Szech and Burma. However perhaps Allies should consider taking a risk and stacking both anyway. Experiments where one devoted an entire bid (in ll should be like 22-25) to strenghening Burma and/or Szech would help alot in determining whether these are options or no.
In any case you can’t abandon Burma on UK1 without facing the risk of Japan building an air and naval base on J2 and taking India J3. Still–20 planes is quite alot. Will have to think this one over.
If Japan attacks Burma or Szech (bolstered by 7 Russian units plus hopefully other bid units), then even if they win the TUV exchange, they could lose tactical advantage if they lose alot of fighters.
If Japan doesn’t attack, Allies should consider a preemptive declaration on UK2 in order to combine in Yunnan.
Notice that if Japan takes any of these battles, they will lose some planes, and this will pay dividends later as USA and Anzac gear up for war.
These sorts of pressure plays work alot better in dice. It was the same for KJF in Revised–KJF worked better in dice because a conservative player is more likely to take a risk in ll than in dice, and KJF is all about spreading Japan thin and inviting Japan to take risks.
Finally, I think it’s possible that the winning strategy in a low luck game (for Allies) might be different from the winning strategy in a dice game. This is due to differences in game dynamics as well as bid.
