I also don’t see why a KJF can’t start in Rd 3-5.
My point is no matter which capital you ultimately go after you still have other objectives to meet against the other power. KJF does not mean ignore Germany. And KGF does not mean ignore Japan.
OK, so we’re into semantics now.
Yes, FIRST can imply who you decide to go after ……whenever… could be round 30. :-P :-P :-P
Yes tongue firmly planted in cheek.
Obviously in any strategy, you don’t TOTALLY ignore one side. I mean, you mention pushing back on Japan from MOSCOW.
Crimeny! That’s practically ignoring them until they got the door open and they’re trying to step throught the threshold. Are you channelling Jennifer-logic Darth?
You’re mid game logic could semantically be called KJF first, but I am sorry, it’s not! (IMHO)
You are playing a balanced game and then deciding where to put a little more emphasis on one of the two axis powers. A KGF or KJF implies that ALL available units are targetting on one of the two axis powers as quickly and efficiently as early as possible.
Any other implemented Strategy is NOT a K_whatever_F strategy.
Besides……
Does it REALLY matter what we call it anyways?
Point taken, DM, but my argument is that if US builds everything in sz55 and go after Jap, that is KJF imo, even if it fails.
I have never lost a game (as axis) in which most production were not spend against G, and that is from rnd 1 to rnd 10 +.
Starting units are different from buying. Moving startup units is tactics, buying is strategy.
Jennifer have also argued that Jap would be deprived of mainland TT’s, and pac islands.
She also claimed to be able to reduce Jap from 30 to 8, and win games with average dice.
I have said many times that almost all games I lost with axis Jap had 40-45. I can hardly recall decent players lose with axis
to a KJF strat, that is Jap is severely reduced more than Germany.
In games (as allies) I’m leading I also shift from combat mostly against G units to Jap units, once the yellow ones are closing in on Moscow.
Have to stop them somewhere, or else axis wins.
My argument is that it’s a bad strat to contain Jap from sz55. This way will make it harder to win.
Jennifer,
I will even try a KJF game as axis with no bid!!
Premise is that 100% of all US buying is placed in LA and moved west, used against Jap.
Whatever US buys cannot be used against G until Jap is reduced to 8 ipc.
What else happens is up to the KJF player.
Beat me with it. If you do then it might work. If not then the KJF strat is certainly inferior.
If you can’t beat a newb with a strat you will not beat decent players either.
We use triplea. No tech. LL. TTL. “always on AA…” :-D :lol:
so your saying they can’t use a stratagy of building in China, Alaska, or Hawii as a KJF strat? not saying Alaska or Hawii are good ideas, but they still are viable.
also by your logic, knowing your going against a KJF play, you could move a vast navy close to LA and when ever they drop ships you strike.
i think allowing more flex of build (like China) and also allowing them to build in the Caribian sea for safty if need be should be allowed.
but China is a must to be allowed. (or any other complex’s the US builds on it’s way to Japan for that matter).
I also don’t see why a KJF can’t start in Rd 3-5.
My point is no matter which capital you ultimately go after you still have other objectives to meet against the other power. KJF does not mean ignore Germany. And KGF does not mean ignore Japan.
OK, so we’re into semantics now.
Yes, FIRST can imply who you decide to go after ……whenever… could be round 30. :-P :-P :-P
Yes tongue firmly planted in cheek.
Obviously in any strategy, you don’t TOTALLY ignore one side.
Exactly!
Just b/c the US drops some ships into Sz 55, but then uses some trns to go to Afr or has some planes/inf in Europe doesn’t mean the Allies aren’t using a KJF.
I mean, you mention pushing back on Japan from MOSCOW.
Crimeny! That’s practically ignoring them until they got the door open and they’re trying to step throught the threshold. Are you channelling Jennifer-logic Darth?
I find it very common to be able to hammer Japan with Russia in KGF strats. Early tactical retreat is a beautiful thing. Rds 1-4 Japan steamrolls in without a care in the world, extends its supply lines, and thins itself out, then once the full on shuck-shuck is going and in place with UK-US and Russia turns its might against Japan and hammers them out of Asia (with Allied support of course).
I love it when a plan comes together. :wink:
You’re mid game logic could semantically be called KJF first, but I am sorry, it’s not! (IMHO)
You are playing a balanced game and then deciding where to put a little more emphasis on one of the two axis powers. A KGF or KJF implies that ALL available units are targetting on one of the two axis powers as quickly and efficiently as early as possible.
Any other implemented Strategy is NOT a K_whatever_F strategy.
Besides……
Does it REALLY matter what we call it anyways?
Everyone should use whatever is at their disposal to win. I just thought it is a bit unfair to apply different standards to KJF or KGF.
It is okay for the UK to attack Japan in rd 1 and not jeopardize KGF status, but oh my gosh if the US sends a couple planes or troops to Afr that is a slow Germany move and doesn’t count as going after Japan.
shrugs
No it doesn’t matter at all. :-D
My argument is that it’s a bad strat to contain Jap from sz55. This way will make it harder to win.
Fair enough.
so your saying they can’t use a stratagy of building in China, Alaska, or Hawii as a KJF strat? not saying Alaska or Hawii are good ideas, but they still are viable.
also by your logic, knowing your going against a KJF play, you could move a vast navy close to LA and when ever they drop ships you strike.
i think allowing more flex of build (like China) and also allowing them to build in the Caribian sea for safty if need be should be allowed.
but China is a must to be allowed. (or any other complex’s the US builds on it’s way to Japan for that matter).
If US builds in China or Sink or any US TT its ok. If US will build in NY and move units to pac is also KJF, but not smart since
units must be used against Jap. US (built) units cannot be used in any TT that is threatened from German attacks.
Also any TT that is conquered from Jap. It still is KJF.
I will not move my Jap fleet to sz55.
In most games I watched, with decent players, 100% of US spendings go to either Afr, Norway or directly to WE/SE.
As for UK strat it’s quite obvious. It’s not so obvious how, where, and when, but UK is surely Russians closest allie in A&A.
Funny enough, the later arguments from Jennifer is pretty much the way many LL players play allies, when allies have advantage.
It’s a balanced strat. Contain Jap from med –-> Cauc, or from Moscow --> south Asia, US stops the Jap invasion in Persia or AE.
It’s a Fabian strategy. Attrition warfare. It’s not uncommon in ADS games.
This has nothing to do with KJF.
I’m looking forward to the upcoming big budget Hollywood movie about Hannibal, a genie who was contained by the very same strats
that most LL players also use. Except when Berlin is 100% with “4 units left for attacker”.
Lucifer, you have to get off TripleA. It’s a malfunctioning program on some computers (like mine. I can NEVER get it to connect, and it crashes in most solo play games.)
And why is it you can attack Japan with Russians, British and American forces but still be in a KJF game, but I cannot box Germany into a corner before sending all my forces after Japan?
And, for the record, my Americans (except in one game) have not built a single unit to go after Germany. I do use 2 infantry, armor and AA Gun from E. USA and 2 Transports, Destroyer from SZ 10 to help contain Germany. That is HARDLY KGF tactics! Likewise, Russians running from Japan for a few rounds is also not KGF tactics, it’s strategy.
As America builds up (I like building in SZ 10, it gives the impression you are just trying to defend against the Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe not take on the Imperial Japanese Navy - then after a couple of rounds I move them into SZ 20, build fighters on round 3 and then carriers on round 4 unifying the fleet.) Japan has to eventually divert funds to navy.
Then, once Germany is contained (Round 4ish) the allies can work on building the walls to keep them contained and let Russia turn on Japan’s army (hardly massive after 4 rounds - usually equivalent to Russia’s available forces not used in containing the Germans) and America’s Navy can acquire land or attack the Japanese fleet.
That is what makes it KJF. Japan suddenly goes from uncontested to on the ropes almost over night. Leaving the British fleet in the Indian Ocean also adds a little flair. From there England can use the fleet to help hold Africa or snipe Japanese islands if Japan doesn’t stay in range to stop them.
I guess what is tripping people like Switch up is the definition.
Definition of KJF: England and Russia first move to stop Germany’s forward momentum in Europe and Africa. America builds (primarily in SZ 10, 45 or 55 depending on safety) fleet, maybe some air force as well. Then, around round 5, America should be strong enough to single handedly defend against Japan’s fleet, Germany should be contained - but not killed! - and Russia’s troops (Round 5 or 6) should be present in Europe only for defense until England doesn’t need them anymore, the rest moving towards Japan to liberate lands and force Japan into choices between replacing ground unit losses or replacing naval unit losses. American investment in Europe contained to a max of about 30 IPC in units built over 4 or 5 rounds. (Generally, I use 0 IPC in purchased units with America, but if the dice arn’t so hot, America should be able to afford a few more ground units to bring over. 5 Inf/5 Arm being the most drastic, but hardly needed in most cases, in MOST cases 0 IPC needed with +/-12 IPC (4 inf).)
Definition of KGF: Allies all but ignore Japan and put 80% or more of their money into attacking and taking Berlin in the hopes Berlin falls before Moscow. This is a lot riskier, IMHO then KJF. In KJF, at least, you are containing Germany then moving against Japan. In KGF you are slowing Japan down with pickets and slight resistance in the form of counter attacks, but generally speaking you are sending two island nations to try to take out Germany.
Notice, BOTH require some action against the other nation. Likewise BOTH can start at any point up to round 5ish.
@Cmdr:
Remember, my ORIGINAL premise is that KJF is a valid attack and KJF is defined as reducing Japan to only a capitol and/or taking said capitol BEFORE taking Berlin.
This definition is somewhat flexible, but understandable enough.
Try it against me, 7 bid to Germany. TripleA, LL, TTL, no tech.
I believe that this premise will hurt more than it helps.
Problems I’ve seen (primarily on this board!)
In KJF tests the axis player makes silly moves with Germany to thwart the KJF. Things like sending 3 fighters to their doom with Germany just to kill a Russian submarine which is no threat would qualify here.
Japan hits SZ 52 with Carrier, Battleship, 3 Fighters, Bomber, Destroyer, Submarine and then moves a Battleship and Carrier to SZ 45 along iwth a 4th fighter, builds a carrier for SZ 60 and has all 6 fighters, 2 battleships, 2 carriers, destroyer (submarine?) ready to hit SZ 55 on Round 1. NO ONE, and I mean not even NEWBS!, runs Japan like that on Round 1! This is OBVIOUSLY using the fore-knowledge of a KJF test to set up a counter to KJF.
Germany buys a carrier in SZ 5 and in SZ 14. Okay, other then a couple of people, who does this in NORMAL games? The point, honestly, is to protect the south from Russian/British planes so that Africa can be exploited knowing that America’s not coming to help the allies.
Germany moves the Battleship to SZ 13. This is alright, it’s not using knowledge of allied tactics overtly, but it’s also not really a standard move anymore. It does force the allies to counter it, but it doesn’t END KJF, just makes it much harder to deal with.
Japan stacks 13 infantry, artillery, armor in FIC on Japan 1, even though England has NOT built an Industrial Complex in India nor has Russia advanced units to help defend India. Again, this is an OBVIOUS case where Japan’s using knowledge of allied tactics to counter KJF before KJF is evident.
Honestly, not ALL of those were on this board, but some where and you, who did it, know who you are.
I find it rather sad that some of you have made some really bone headed moves with Germany in high risk gambles, complain when they don’t pay off saying “misrepresentation” or other such. If you put fighters or armor where the allies can kill them for low cost, then why in the world would the allies NOT KILL THEM? I don’t care if I am planing to hit Japan or Germany, if I can kill either sides fighters or tanks without risk to my own tanks or planes, I’m killing them, so is everyone else on this board.
Likewise, if it’s possible for Russia to collect for Balkans, E. Europe, Ukraine, Norway, W. Russia and Belorussia before turning back on Japan, how is it KGF for them to do it? It’s only KGF if I reduce Germany to a capitol or take Berlin. Anything else is Slow Germany then Kill Japan First. Just like a raiding party with America in the Pacific taking islands while the Japanese fleet is locked in the Med is not Kill Japan First when you are obviously hitting Germany. It just slows down Japan a little. Just like if Japan leaves Manchuria undefended to take China heavier, or moves all his troops to FIC against India if there is, or they think there will be, an Industrial Complex there and Russia takes Manchuria and Kwangtung before getting attacked is also NOT KJF necessarily.
I’ve purposely extended the time frame because there is NO REASON to attack in Round 2 when Attacking in Round 4 is just plain easier and allows you to recover from bad attacks or exploit your enemy’s bad moves. Furthermore it only makes sense that if you think Germany’s going to be an easier target because they’re attacking useless submarines with fighters and leaving the fighters where they can be destroyed, then why initiate KJF?
As all of you have seen, I have been a LONG TIME advocate of allied flexibility. I don’t like to commit to any strategy until I see an opportunity. Instead, I do things like buy fighters with England and leave the fleet in the Indian Ocean. I buy fighters with America to threaten Germany’s fleets, but leave them in areas where they can easily run back to North America and move into the Pacific if I go there. I build submarines with England so that England can take the Carrier fleet in SZ 5 down if America cannot come help (Submarines can be used later as fodder to prevent German Air Force strafes or to send down to Africa to prevent Brazil from falling.) Russia goes almost completely infantry/artillery for a couple of rounds to maximize out put, but large armies stand in both Russia and Caucasus (and W. Russia potentially.) Pretty centralized so I can hit either Japan or Germany if the opportunity arises.
@Cmdr:
Remember, my ORIGINAL premise is that KJF is a valid attack and KJF is defined as reducing Japan to only a capitol and/or taking said capitol BEFORE taking Berlin.
This definition is somewhat flexible, but understandable enough.
Try it against me, 7 bid to Germany. TripleA, LL, TTL, no tech.
I believe that this premise will hurt more than it helps.
Sure, but any map OTHER then TripleA. TripleA doesn’t work on my computer, as I’ve said before. (it doesn’t really work on Switch’s either, it locks up on his, which is why he originally quit the KJF game with me.)
Unless someone knows of a strategy that trumps KJF as a way to defeat the Axis (through denied income primarily, later through military dominance due to denied income) I’m all ears. But as it stands now, I’m actually finding KJF to be easier then KGF. Of course, now that I’ve been very vociferous about my favor of KJF over KGF, I’ll have to play some KGF games, just to be unpredictable. (I do it to Bean all the time, he hates it. I’ll argue not to do something, he’ll think I won’t do it, then I’ll do it anyway. Tongue )
I don’t hate it at all… in fact it’s already won me a fast game against you because you’re not used to what you’re doing.
Your KJF arguments ring absolutely hollow to me still. All you do is pick up isolated bits that worked in games where the opposing player made a stupid mistake, then make it look as if KJF is valid because of that. Or call standard anti-KGF tactics as specifically countering KJF. There’s just no way to show that you are wrong, is there? As long as it worked once due to dice or error on the opposing player, then it is unassailable as a strategy that is better than KGF.
If anything, our quickie showed that KGF is a better strategy. Berlin captured on Round 6, and you were trying to defend your capital. Japan nowhere near Moscow. That seems far superior to KJF.
To me, KJF takes way too long. The Japanese fleet with a mere additional 16 IPC investment becomes a massive stronghold of 2 bb 3 car 6 fig 1 dest 5+ tran and maybe a sub if it survived J1. The Americans are wildly spending money trying to beat that fleet first on defense (doesn’t take long), but then offense (takes a long time), and then by the time the Americans have the necessary fleet (which consists of lots of subs/dest/car which are useless on land), the Japanese simply run the fleet away and have 300-400 IPCs of lands units in Asia and complexes to keep the production up and defend against landing. I showed exactly that in our KJF game. Japan was absolutely unbeatable in Asia, and Asia is where all the money was at. The Allies were in a losing economic situation with no way to increase it (past the clever attack on Japan which I should have seen).
Why make life difficult - if UK and Russia can contain Germany by themselves, that means with the American’s 40 IPCs added in that Germany should be tipped extremely fast - like I did to you. You also get lots of nice joint defense with the UK navy against any little German navy or airforce, so the UK spends less fooling around with carriers/subs. Why would you go after Japan on round 4 or later when you have inferior income and are facing a ridiculous defensive fleet with the sole addition of a carrier?
You say you like to take opportunities as you see them - what opportunity do you see in trying to outspend a massive fleet when instead you could tip the Germans out since the Uk and Russia are already hemming them in? There’s absolutely no way you can stop Japan from flooding Asia even in a KJF, so it’s hard for me to understand why you’re so excited over a big American fleet when it has nowhere to land and Asia is completely toppled.
Okay, Japan builds a carrier and locks all their fighters at sea. You now have to produce something on the land to attack with. Those fighters cannot move further then 2 spaces inland, after all.
It’s all trade offs. Our “quicky” was a KGF game, not a KJF.
As for taking games where opponents made mistakes as evidence that KJF works just as well as KGF, uhm, am I supposed to take games where I lost to prove it works!?! Seems a bit silly, honestly. All games are won by capitalizing on your opponents mistakes and making sure your own mistakes are less grievous then theirs are.
Thing is, people see KJF and get uber aggressive with Germany (and Japan sometimes.) This only plays into the hands of the allies! You do NOT stack Karelia on Germany 1 and move into Archangelsk on Germany 2 because the allies WILL destroy you. If you go massive into SZ 52, then the Allies just build in SZ 10 and come at you from under S. America later when you have backed off. If you stack FIC against an IC, present or not, in India, then you are not attacking Sinkiang or Russia, which means the allies can build there and push in. Sure, you get the IC in India, if it is there, but now you have nothing left to hold your lands and you’ve lost your coastal territories.
I’ve only seen one defense that’s worked for Japan and the only hint I’ll give you is that it did not involve Japan making a mad dash for Russia or India. I’ll keep the rest in my pocket to use when you boys attempt KJF on me in the tournaments next year or next year’s league. (Yes, Darth, I know you are going to try it, and this time I’m ready for it!)
Germany, likewise, cannot make a mad dash. Germany has to be played NORMALLY in a KJF. You play it abnormally, you take risks, you attempt to break Russia sooner then normal, and you’re taking on a lot of risk. Just because America is putting all their new units towards Japan does not mean Russia and England suddenly become push overs. Between the two of them they can out produce the Germans, and America can equal and surpass Japan since America only needs naval units, Japan needs naval and ground units and industrial complexes.
Yea, some of the KJF wins were against really bone headed moves. All of the KJF loses were due to bone headed moves (generally just one or two while I ironed out the strategy and got the last few holes mended.) There was no bad luck for the allies in the losses and no really stellar luck on the wins. Most of the games fell in pretty average - which means that the only reason one side lost and the other won was because of better positioning on the board.
Sure, there was some whining about misrepresentation, or not knowing that those units were in jeapordy, or awe that you hit the other guy with a 50% chance to win and won. But that happens in every game, not just KJF games.
And, honestly, the BEST KJF games were the ones where I didn’t tell the other guy I was doing KJF until I did it. No out of this world moves, resulting in pretty normal game play by Germany and Japan until about rounds 3 and 4 when they realized what was happening.
Now, since the game is cyclical, I’m sure KJF will eventually become the method of choice in killing the axis (or at least very strong SJF) and people will come up with new and old counters again, get back in practice and people will once again move to Kill Germany First. Just like people shifted back and forth on the Kwang-Bang in classic (Russia takes Manchuria, England takes Kwangtung, America takes FIC all in Round 1.)
I’ve only seen one defense that’s worked for Japan and the only hint I’ll give you is that it did not involve Japan making a mad dash for Russia or India. I’ll keep the rest in my pocket to use when you boys attempt KJF on me in the tournaments next year or next year’s league. (Yes, Darth, I know you are going to try it, and this time I’m ready for it!)
You mean my defense? I didn’t rush to either Moscow or India. I never rushed anywhere. I took my time with plenty of infantry, ate up Africa and the outer Pacfic rim that’s why 30 infantry were there on both sides of Moscow with steel behind them. My only anti-KJF move was one carrier purchase with Japan, and that was simply a response to a huge American fleet, not before it appeared. But maybe you have something else to say?
Okay, Japan builds a carrier and locks all their fighters at sea. You now have to produce something on the land to attack with. Those fighters cannot move further then 2 spaces inland, after all.
Japan doesn’t have to do this for many turns, even. First 4 rounds are scot free, and maybe it’s round 6 or 7 before they land 4 fighters back, then maybe another round before adding the carrier and the other 2 fighters. By that time Asia is well plowed under.
Now, since the game is cyclical, I’m sure KJF will eventually become the method of choice in killing the axis
I doubt it. KGF as I showed you how KGF is lean and brutal, and how KJF takes longer.
But you are taking one game in a vacuum, I’m taking a couple dozen games against multiple opponents.
Yes, you had a lucky game. And yes, you showed me a weak point which I have since corrected. (Though, to be honest, every strategy has a weak point, there’s no perfect strategy in this game. Even KGF has multiple weak points.)
Jennifer, you should at least admit that KJF doesn’t work with LL and no tech.
And KJF doesn’t work with TripleA either :-P
No tech I don’t have to admit. I have yet to use tech in KJF.
LL has only had one game. Who knows based on one game if it works or not? I could say that if I lost a KGF game in LL then LL doesn’t work for KGF.
As for TripleA, Kill America First works in TripleA, not a stellar program if you ask me.
I have never lost to a KJF.
You said Germany are easily contained, why is it that players use 3 countries against G in the first 4-6 rnds?
I could rephrase my statement on the KJF strat: KJF does not work against ME
using TripleA, LL and no tech :-P
To get KJF to work you have to restrain Germany, as I’ve said. I’ve gone up against some of the best and been able to routinely get Germany restrained with a major Ally stack in E. Europe. Once you get a major Ally stack in E. Europe, even if Germany gets strong enough to force you to retreat, you are miles ahead. This really only NEEDS a minimum of 4 rounds. And it does NOT take away from America’s ability to produce major naval units (think a Battleship or Carrier a turn minimum, not including submarines, destroyers, transports and fighter.)
The funny part is when players complain that it’s not really KJF when America’s done almost NOTHING but produce naval units. Admittedly, the game with 505 I had to do slightly more, primarily due to less then optimal results with Russia and England, I had to bring in some reinforcements to get them back on track. But that’s just one game.
And the totally hilarious part is that I’ve won a better percentage of my games when I go KJF then when I go KGF! And the only real difference is that in KGF I send the Americans after the Germans as well as the Russians and British! Guess the Americans in the Pacific does a lot more then just look pretty.
…
Regardless of whether you go KGF or KJF, there are certain factors the Allies need to do in both cases:
#1 - do something about Afr
#2 - do something about the Ger navy
#3 - set up some type of Atlantic shuck.…
My point is no matter which capital you ultimately go after you still have other objectives to meet against the other power. KJF does not mean ignore Germany. And KGF does not mean ignore Japan.With my style I try and play a pretty generic rds 1-3 so that when it hits mid-game I can pick my target either Germany or Japan OR go after both.
I have to agree with Darth. There are fundamental things that must be done in any strat. What it ends up being called seems more a matter of hindsight and not really that relevant. Did you win? Then your strat worked whatever you want to call it.
All this smacks to me of chest thumping- my way is best talk, which I guess is what we come here for :-)
You have to go with the flow don’t you? :|
@Cmdr:
The funny part is when players complain that it’s not really KJF when America’s done almost NOTHING but produce naval units.
If you build in sz55 and sail the ships to pac not to Europe then it’s KJF.
Guess the Americans in the Pacific does a lot more then just look pretty.I’m peeing my pants, Jen, I’m so scared of your KJF :roll:
