No, if you divert assets to England iwth America you are asking to die.
The absolute MOST you can put towards England in a KJF is 2 transports, 1 destroyer, 2 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 armor and 1 bomber…and those should probably go to Africa instead.
In KJF strategy how much Russian forces do you divert to the east per turn ?
Anytime Ive gone KJF, I go defensive with russia and divert as many forces against Japan as possible without letting Germany threaten Moscow. In my KJF its usually Russia’s goal to simply not get crushed.
10 Infantry from Russia. (2 From Kazakh, 2 From Novosibirsk, 2 from Evenki National Okrug, 2 From Yakut SSR, 2 From Soviet Far East and 2 from Buryatia SSR.)
4 of those move to Sinkiang to defend.
6 of those either move to Buryatia for 1 turn then retreat to Yakut SSR or move to Yakut SSR immediately.
You don’t need to send anything else.
Remember, Japan’s going to be up 2 for China, 1 for Buryatia, 1 for SFE, 3 for India. That’s only +7 IPC. 37 IPC vs 40 IPC for America and America doesn’t have to worry about building ground forces to hold their core 38 IPC.
That means Japan is immediately thrust into the position of: Should we build men to take Russia or Submarines to stop America?
Add in a potential dual hit on New Guinea and Borneo with England (44.75% Chance of winning both, 7.56% chance of loosing both) and the naval attacks by England on the Transport in SZ 59 (94.4% success rate) and the attack on the SZ 45 submarine which is really a 50/50 battle and you could put Japan in a very serious hole before they even get a chance to move. Doubly so after America plops down 2 Aircraft Carriers and a Fighter in builds added to the 2 fighters on E. W. USA and the Fighter from Hawaii + Battleship, Transport in LA and Destroyer from Panama.
The only problem with that simple eval Jen is that it is FAR cheaper to defend at sea (as Japan) than to attack at sea (as US).
So a straight IPC analysis is not completely accurate…
But we ahve been over that argument before…
But it can’t defend all it’s islands … and you guys don’t build ICs in Sinkiang or India in KJF?
It does not have to defend ALL of them.
Against a KJF:
Japan uses 1 TRN to send reiunforcements to islands, starting with the most valuable
Japan builds AC’s and lands existing FIGs on them (3 loaded AC’s, or 6 standard carrier fleets)
Japan preserves 2 initial BB’s
Japan Adds a couple of SUBs for offensive punch, TRNs to move units, land units for Asia and Island defense, and additional AF.
US moves in, loses a lot of ground troops on an island assault, then the Japan fleet converges and wipes out the US fleet. While the US rebuilds, Japan replaces losses, re-takes the island, and continues to push in Asia.
Sure. The allies would truely enjoy Japan sending hoards of infantry to her islands. Meanwhile, America sails around them all, lands in Asia proper and sets up 1 infantry, 5 battleship invasions of Japan while sending 9 tanks to Europe. Japan, meanwhile, is stuck on her pretty little islands, most of which arn’t worth taking anway.
I feel that Borneo/New Guinea for UK1 is overextension, and that the Japanese will make the UK pay.
How would they make Uk pay? By taking India early? By killing the UK Pacific fleet early?
I’m just saying that if you are going to be throwing US fleets at Japan right from the start, it is very difficult for Japan to ever get around to taking back Borneo and New Guinia. This amounts to an extra 5 IPC for UK for the entire game. I think this is well worth losing your pacific fleet, losing India, and losing the chance of a Egypt counter. Stacking India or countering in Egypt will give you extra IPC for a few turns, but I don’t think they match the benefits of holding 5 IPC for the entire game without having to spend any UK resources in defence.
But if UK loses India / Egypt Japan has a path into Asia and unless US builds an IC in Sinkiang on US1 there is only Russia to defend it
But if England takes Borneo/New Guinea on round 1, which is actually doable, not huge chance of success, but pretty good, you are stealing 5 IPC from America too.
I don’t think America needs the 5 IPCs as much as UK but if UK takes Borneo it is probably going to lose India and its Pacific Fleet which I don’t think it should do in a KJF strategy
But if UK loses India / Egypt Japan has a path into Asia and unless US builds an IC in Sinkiang on US1 there is only Russia to defend it
I’d say in most games I play that is the case. I rarely build an IC in India or Sink.
But I guess if you are trying to go KJF you would probably want an IC in both. And I guess that would involve defending India with Russian forces for one or two turnes if you wanted to grab Borneo and New Guinia. Might be possible…
KJF turns into all for america, none for the other allies.
Problem is, in a KJF, Japan’s fighting so desperately not to loose their fleet they won’t recover Borneo and New Guinea. That means America looses out on a prime island location for a forward industrial complex.
That’s true. But wouldn’t you rather than Uk had the extra 5 IPC? The US can still take East Indies or Philipines for an IC.
Yes. But I’d rather England retake Egypt and maybe New Guinea and leave the Japs to America and Russia.
Retaking Egypt is a very good use of those troops as well. But sometimes it is not possible. And Egypt is nothing more than a minor delay for Gemany unless you have immediate help in Africa. Wheras Borneo and New Guinia in a KJF game will likely result in 5 IPC every turn for the entire game. A benefit that nearly offsets losing all of Africa.
But I do like retaking Egypt as well. But in a KJF game?
If you cannot retake Egypt, you CAN stack Kenya which will force Germany to put more feet on the street in Africa to take those last 3 IPCs.
Or, you can stack India. 4 Infantry, 1 AA Gun and an IC is a pretty good stack for UK 1. Just don’t EVER move out and make sure to put at least 10 IPC into India a round.
And yes, England and Russia are all but superfulous in a KJF strategy. American should be putting nearly 99.9% of her assets into the Pacific which requires Japan to do likewise or yield the Pacific to the Americans. Meanwhile, 10 Infantry from Russia, 4 Infantry (5 if you can run that guy from T-J fast enough) and a Fighter from England plus the Fleet that is normally IN the Pacific and lost ANYWAY is plenty to hold Japan back for a few rounds.
3 Rounds = 120 IPC in Units + 44 IPC in Fleet already in the Pacific (BB, TRN, DD - Assuming Atlantic Fleet invades Algeria to harass Germany, or lands in England to secure from Op Sea Lion) is a large Whollop to take out.
And the units I’m asking for from England and Russia do not cost them anything more then is normally cost to them in a Kill Germany First game.
Actually you ARE asking for extra troops, at least 2 extra Russian INF (that normally go Evenk to Moscow) and the FIG from UK that eitehr goes to an AC, or to Moscow/Caucuses/West Russia as needed for defense (and offensive strike once the UK lands in Europe).
And you will not ahve the US mass then either.
That means the ENTIRE UK FLEET is at immediate risk in Turn 2, and if the Germans can sink the UK fleet AND make a strong play for Africa, UK is toast as an offensive power in Europe. And with No UK threat, and no US presence at all, except that paltry US1 landing of 4 units, Germany with an income over $40 and riusing, is free to go after Russia with an income of $24 and falling. Even assuming a good solid R1 open, Caucuses falls about G4, after Germany has taken/liberated Karelia/Archangel/West Russia/Ukraine, and most or all of Africa.
