Revisiting the Kill Japan First (KJF) Strategy

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.

The only thing that makes it an outlier is the mistakes both of us made. It has nothing to do with statistics, the only thing that was sort of unlucky was you losing 3 figs to 1 bb 1 tran.

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.

That’s because I’m exactly like you - I play flexibly. Heavy Pearl + med to Gibraltar is the most flexible it gets, both are excellent preparations for both KGF and KJF. Regardless of KGF or KJF you’re right, I play Germany the same, 1 car + 3-4 rounds of pure infantry.

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.

But that doesn’t make any sense. If you delay KJF to round 4, Japan will have eaten Russia’s profits the same as in a KGF.

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?

It’s funny how you like to say you are a flexible player, then do not realize another one when one slaps you in the face. Heavy Pearl and Gibraltar are my ultimate flexibility in both KGF and KJF. German fleet link is a threat, plus there’s almost no point in going east with the med fleet anymore with how easy it is for the Allies to kill a separated med fleet and retake Africa. And I have maximum airforce with Japan in other battles since I’m not using 3 fig 1 bom in Pearl.

I see that you actually do think I was preparing specifically for KJF, when that is not true at all. I am doing exactly what you think you are doing with the Allies - consolidating forces to use them flexibly. Why do you think otherwise - so you feel better about your strategy? With heavy pearl + gibraltar, I am telling the Allies I am ready for anything they want to try. I am telling them I am not expecting either KGF or KJF. Just because you think so only means that you do not actually understand the moves.

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.

You mean, you have a lot of obvious mistakes that make the strategy look better than it is. I think you’re ultra relieved that I mistakenly underdefended Japan, because in our game you were finished - and obviously so, with no really lucky dice either way.

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.

That’s why KGF works. The Americans supply additional land forces in those areas then Russia can push backwards.

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),

That’s not the premise. The premise is that KGF is more effective than KJF. It is not impossible to win with KJF just as it is not impossible to win without a bid as the Axis. It is more unlikely, but possible. Maybe we have no argument because you’re arguing something too different than what I’m arguing.

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.

Ok great point, and I’m not crying about exploiting mistakes - I applaud you for that, it means you are a good player. But do you see how that says nothing about the actual strategy itself once it’s been seen once? What you’re proving is that if you use unfamiliar tactics that the enemy will make mistakes - it has nothing to do with the specific KJF strategy, it has to do with a meta strategy of making the opponent uncomfortable. That’s exactly how Csub’s sea lion and land bridge have worked against many opponents - not because that specific strategy is good once it’s been figured out, but because of the surprise factor.

So all it seems to me is that KJF has surprise factor - that once the surprise is taken out, we see that KGF is not only easier but more effective.

@Cmdr:

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.

The best players in the lobby never uses KJF. I have sometimes seen attack on Jap forces in pac, (from US)
but I cannot remember that the top players built anything anytime in sz 55.
Why is the KJF strat not used by top players? 
I have a hard time remember that I lost a game (as axis) where US build a lot in sz 55, weather it was rnd 4 or rnd 14.
Why?

A funny game a ended this evening, 17 rnds, LL. It was not until the 17th rnd  that I got US units stacking
Persia  :lol:
US marines met heavy resistance in AE and TJ. 100% of all US production went to Afr. for 17 rnds…

It’s very obvious that Jap has to be stopped sometime, somewhere, before Jap take Moscow,
but it’s hardly possible to do this from WUS, if G is still strong, if allies got WE+SE etc then the game is over usually
over even if Berlin is stacked with ftrs and infantry.
The only advantage I see with building any naval unit in sz55 is that this might stop Jap from moving navy to
med.
If Jap navy sits in IO, then it’s in reach of both sz60 and AE.

About proof and the philosophy of science, I really doubt that your KJF-strat article will be printed in the
next edition of Science.

@Cmdr:

I could say that if I lost a KGF game in LL then LL doesn’t work for KGF.

As a math teacher (?) you better know about statistics.
Can you explain why decent players generally never uses KJF strat?

@Cmdr:

Because they have to think in KJF.

KGF as the most used and preferred strat, you really don’t think a certain overall strat that players choose, have anything to do with success rate?
Once you got triplea up and runnin’ then you play against me with LL NT. Then, if you win, I’m pretty sure you gonna loose, after playing me you have to face players I cannot beat yet. If you ever come this far, then we talk about
the KJF strat. If you cannot get triplea to work you won’t play me. If you can’t beat me in LL, no tech, then
you won’t beat the best players either.
The KJF does not work until you have proven it. I Am the scientific community here. You also have to reproduce
your results. And if you can beat this A&A-player assistant, then you will meet a board of expert A&A LL’ers    :evil:
Only after you survive this, then the KJF strat may be accepted as a strat equal with the traditional KGF strat.

Why play 10 games against same or different players, when we can have same variation in one single LL game,
and less randomness in no tech? If you prefer ADS fine, np.
I don’t have any problems with people who gets more fun playing ADS than LL. When testing a new strat or a specific opening move why spend more work hours than you need to?

If you don’t understand that spending x amount of ipc against Jap from rnd 1 or rnd 5, is exactly the same
general strat in LL as in ADS. How you do it, how much, and where may vary from each game, and may vary with
LL setting or ADS. But general strats are the same also with tech. Leave Afr for G to have, this is the same
strategic decision no matter what rules are.
As for the game as designed, you will lose most games if you play OOB. I guess I don’t have to explain
why?
A&A did not get a good finish. The only way to balance the game with OOB rules is sealion G1 with LRA.

@Cmdr:

LL is a completely different game.

Bigger variation is completely different game??

If you cannot win in ADS then you cannot win the game as designed.

Few players can manage more than 50% with pure OOB rules, playing axis.
The only way to win 50% of all games as axis is sealion G1 with LRA. Or you wanna play axis without
any bids? You cannot win the game as designed?

Why is it that I cannot win against the best players yet, with LL and no tech? I would have a chance with
ADS b/c of the bigger variation, you are claiming that the best LL players cannot win with ADS and tech,
generally, this is stupid argument.
You know very well that there is no LL player who hasn’t played either revised or classic board game, with
both dice and tech  :wink:
I have won ADS games, and so have the best LL players. In a ranking system, warclub ladder, or in a A&A league,
it’s obvious that players who win much more than 50% is better than average. Stats are irrelevant of
LL, tech or ADS!
I’m not claiming that I’m a better player than you Jennifer.
And if you are better than me you will win regardless of rules, or setting. But in a single game or 3,
there is a possibility to get lucky, with tech or ADS. You can not get very lucky with LL.
You have failed to explain why KJF can work with ADS/tech, and not LL no tech.

@Cmdr:

I’m more then willing to take LHTR, since that was created by the designer.  But LL was not.  LL is a completely different game.  You have different attacks, you have different strategies, you buy differently, etc.  Completely different.

“different game” is no argument, it’s just a statement.
Bid was not created by designer. Why use bids then?
You will not take bids since it was not created by the designers. Fine, I take allies against you in a pure
OOB rule game then  :-P
You still haven’t explained how it is a different game in LL.
I’m not saying LL is better, although I prefer LL, I have not seen any arguments that explain how it is
different game with more or less variation. You buy different if G buys all navy. You buy and move different
if Jap goes all out against the US, I have actually seen stacks of Jap units in Alaska+Canada.
Every game is different. There’s no use of moving AA guns if opponent lost all aircraft.
LL vs ADS is no more different then all other different games and strats, and tactics in A&A.

You probably need to work on KJF then since good players regularly take more than 7 IPCs when facing a KGF.

what makes a sub in SZ 8 so great?