Revisiting the Kill Japan First (KJF) Strategy

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.)

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.)

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.

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.

Frimmel, and everyone else,

I’m not trying to say that KJF is the best way.  I’m trying to prove it is just as viable a method to win as KGF.  It’s probably easier to win KGF for players with lesser experience playing more experienced axis players, I wouldnt know for sure though.  I’ve taken down some top flight players with KJF recently, players that beat the snot out of me when I go KGF.  Though, I’ll chalk those up to the novelty of KJF and the lack of experience they have in fighting it.

Anyway, there’s four distinct KJF paths I’ve discovered.

Option 1:  Indian Industrial Complex in Round 1 or 2.  This is much harder to pull off because Germany is not contained first and Japan’s going to go bananas trying to get that complex.  But it’s not impossible.  Trick to pulling option 1 off is to hope Japan goes for the I:IC at the expense of Kwangtung and Manchuria (to Russia!) and without investing in fleet.

Option 2:  Round 4 initiation.  Trick to pulling this off is to be aggressive against Germany, convince the Axis that you are trying to kill Germany before Japan can get Moscow to spur the Japanese on.  Meanwhile, pull your American and British naval forces from the Pacific/Indian Oceans to the South Atlantic.  An idea I had toyed with in a game was putting an American IC in Brazil and shuttling from Brazil for a while.  Relatively safe, helps hold Africa for a while, and doesn’t tip your hand prematurely. (nothing like boys who are premature, no fun for girls!)  From here you can immediately jump right down into New Zealand/Australia in short order, well away from the Japanese fleet forcing them to come to you and attack you to get their islands back. (Always good to get Japan to attack you!)

Option 3:  British IC in S. Africa.  Same tactics as Round 2, but England spends their own money on Africa instead of America allowing the Americans to build fleet.

Option 4:  No Industrials, you just wait until England/America unite in Round 3, then move towards New Zealand.

Some goals that I think have to be achieved in any of the above:

1)  The Med Fleet has to go bye bye.  When it’s gone, Africa is secure and England is secure.  You should be able to do this by Round 3 in most games.

2)  E. Europe should be taken and secured.  If you cannot pull that off, a stack in Karelia/Archangelsk will work as a back up.  The whole point of this is to have England hold back the Germans eventually so Russia can send the lion’s portion of their armies back towards Japan, pinching the Japanese in a land war to the west and a naval engagement to the east.  If they lose just one of those, they are out of the game.  That’s a lot of pressure to put on Japan.

3)  The Americans are going to have to do the grunt work at sea without much help from anyone.  I’ve brought the Russian Submarine over and I’ve routinely brought the British Carrier and Destroyer (not the fighter or transports.  Those I send north so England has a full compliment of transports.  I land extra American fighters on the British carrier, they’re more useful in attack then British fighters are.)

Nah, using the same opponent each time only proves you are better then they are.  Using multiple opponents (most of which are better players then myself) and winning shows that the strategy works.

And Lucifer, I already said I’d be willing to accept the challenge using battlemap, mapview or just posted unit distribution lists since my tripleA doesn’t work but tech has to be available, it’s part of the core game rules.  Havn’t used it in a KJF yet, but it needs to be available. :P  And it’s not going to be low luck.  If you can only win games by determining the optimal amount to strike with so as to not waste a single unit, then your tactics are flawed.

And I normally have E. Europe in Round 4 or 5.  By have, I mean 20+ allied infantry, a dozen tanks and half a dozen planes for two nations there. (two nation’s planes, 3 nations for the rest.)  If Germany stacks heavy, it might take longer, but lately, the good players I’ve hit with KJF have not been defending E. Europe heavy in hopes that the increased pressure on Russia will make it fall. (It’s yet to fall in a KJF game against an overly aggressive Germany.)

Point is, Germany HAS to play the SAME game whether or not it’s KJF.  Japan has to change tactics, and that change is generally less attacks at Russia so they can defend against America and not over extend themselves.

Your game, in the statistics industry, would be termed an out lier, Bean.  Exceptions to the rule are not the way to decide if it works or not.  One does not take a child who is in Mensa and use that one child to prove America has the best educational system in the world.

And I used 2 transports in ONE game. (two NEW ones.)  All the rest used NO NEW TRANSPORTS from America.  As for saying that buying transports is a bad idea, I dunno where you are getting that.  I don’t remember ever saying transports were a waste.  I said that building EXTRA transports can be a waste for certain nations.  For instance, a German build of 1 Carrier, 3 Transports on Round 1 is probably wasting transports.

And yes, Germany has to follow their normal plan in a KJF.  You followed a normal German plan too.  You didn’t try to set up Operation Sea Lion or pull out some wild and crazy idea.

As for why I can’t get E. Europe hard with KGF it’s because Japan has eaten into all of Russia’s profits.  With no income comes no tanks.  You have to set up a push on Japan, and yes, in MOST games Japan will NOT be taking anything of consequence with their ground forces.

Obviously, the Allies should make an INTELLIGENT choice after seeing what Japan does.  Do they set up for KJF on round 1 like Mr. Bean did?  Then KJF may not be the best solution.  This is EXACTLY why I said don’t commit yourself to KJF on Round 1, wait until Round 2 (later changed to Round 4 since you can always start at that point or earlier with relative ease.)

Does Germany do something stupid like leave 50% of the Luftwaffe exposed to attack?  Did Japan move their entire navy to SZ 34 on Japan 3?

It’s pretty simple to just go with KGF if Japan hit Pearl with everything they have and brought the rest in range of SZ 55 AND Germany moved their Battleship over to SZ 13 on G1 AND put a carrier in the water in SZ 5 AND pulled back their front lines.

That’s broadcasting to the allies that they expect KJF and have moved to slow themselves down and turtle up.  Well, if they’re turtling up, take advantage of it and hold Africa, reinforce Asia and sink the German fleets.  May as well, they’ve already shot themselves in one foot.

If they go more traditional (Pearl Light, Battleship to SZ 15 to hit Egypt, etc) then KJF is almost a no brainer.  Doubly so since most axis players have never seen a way to defeat KJF so have to actually think of a strategy instead of copying what others have done to them as is the case when defending against KGF.

As for CSub, I’ve never read their papers, Bean.  I never intend to read them.  Just about everyone I have talked too uses CSub as the butt of their jokes.  (Their papers, not their email list.)

If you have significant forces in Karelia/E. Europe/Ukraine area then Russia can dedicate 100% of their new resources to Japan.  That will stop their forward momentum and push them back since now they have to make choices between navy and army.

BTW, the onus is now on the KJF deniers to prove that KJF is as bad as they have claimed.  I have a lot of games under my belt with KJF to show it’s just as easy as KGF to win.  Your turn to prove it does not work.

All games are won because of a mistake.  If neither side makes a mistake, then the game goes on indefinitely.

Point is, the axis are MORE likely to make mistakes in KJF then in KGF because KGF is ingrained into everyone’s brains.  There’s a pretty hard and fast formula to use.  Do this on Germany 1.  Do this on Japan 2.  By Round 5 you should have these objectives, etc.

In KJF there’s no formula for the axis!  You have to think on your own and that leads to mistakes.  Like leaving Japan too lightly defended in a desperate attempt to take out Russia before America crushes you.  Like attacking a Russian submarine and losing 50% of your air force because you think you need to reduce the defensive values of the Allied Fleet while you can.  Like trying too hard to get Africa so you can hit that almighty 50 IPC mark with Germany, allowing England and Russia to push you back to Berlin and you STILL not having all of Africa.  Like racing the Med Fleet out of the Med to grab Brazil and W. Indies instead of running for Caucasus.  Like keeping the Japanese fleet in home waters instead of in the Arabian Seas helping secure Africa and getting troops to Caucasus faster.

What mistakes do the allies make?  None.  England and Russia basically do KGF without America while America single handedly handles Japan.  In very RARE, extremely RARE, games I’ve needed extra aid from America and that was only to recover from exceptionally bad results on the dice.  But the aid is very minimal if taken in the full context of the game.

But thanks for showing us all that the solution to the statement that KJF is impossible and will always result in Axis victory (as was originally premised on these boards), when proven wrong, is crying that it’s only because of a mistake here or there.  Shoot, I could say any game the axis lose is because of a mis-judgment or bad dice then!  After all, with a bid, the axis should win 100% of the games if they use perfect tactics!