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:
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?
Because they have to think in KJF. It’s not formulaic like KGF is now. You can’t fall back on a proven strategy.
@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.
LL is a completely different game.
If you cannot win in ADS then you cannot win the game as designed. Likewise, if you cannot win with tech in play, then you cannot win the game as designed. Only changes to the game I’ll accept is bid and LHTR 2.0. Optional rules are optional, so National Advantages, of course, are not brought into play.
But tech stays and it’s an ADS game or we can stop having a discussion. :P
Anyway, you don’t need triplea. Just type out your moves and use a phsyical board (or use the edit feature in triplea.) I can read, I can manually move the units around just fine. =)
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.
I use more artillery in low luck, less armor. Cheaper and give me the same over all punch. However, in ADS, armor have a significantly better chance of hitting when I attack.
ie: Infantry + Artillery = 4 Attack Punch, Cost 7
ie: Infantry + Armor = 4 Attack Punch, Cost 8
Spread over a 400 IPC army, that’s a mess of extra units you get with Inf/Art for no cost in LL.
@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.
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.
@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.
I have pretty well set test parameters.
1) Blind bid, no limit, but I guarantee that no one gets higher then 7 IPC since that’s what I bid in games I want to play KJF.
2) LHTR 2.0 Rules
Yes Technologies
Yes National Advantages
Yes Actual Dice Servers
However, techs may never be used and games don’t need National Advantages (I didn’t use any NA games in my test results because NAs are designed, I feel, to make KJF almost impossible to resist.)
You probably need to work on KJF then since good players regularly take more than 7 IPCs when facing a KGF.
In my experience, the best players are still averaging 4-7 IPC with 8 being the cut off to prevent Submarine bids in SZ 8
what makes a sub in SZ 8 so great?
UK will be left with 1 trn in sz1 when ot´s their turn.
(both battleship will be killed in G1)
So you give up taking over Egypt just to eliminate the second battleship?
And can’t Russia just see it coming and modify their opening play to take Norway instead of Ukraine? Then you can’t land your bomber, your fighter is dead, and you can no longer kill that 2nd battleship, and now your bid seems like a bit of a waste.
I guess I’m not convinced that that’s such a stellar strategy. I guess it seems pretty great economically because you get to kill 24 IPCs worth of stuff, but the opportunity cost to you is significant. and the battleships actual real world value is significantly less than 24.
The attack on Norway is very risky. Even if the Submarine in SZ 8 isn’t used to kill the second British Battleship in SZ 2 because the Russian’s killed the fighter in Norway, the risk of losing the Russian fighter is pretty high and most Russian’s, because of it, won’t make the attack.
With a second Submarine in SZ 8 you still kill Egypt, Battleship in SZ 13 as well as Battleship, Transport in SZ 2.
And even if you DONT kill the Egyptians and the British come into the Med. You can always put the Battleship/Transport back in SZ 14 and put a carrier (fighters from land) and 3 Submarines in SZ 14 with them and bulk up in Libya instead of attacking Egypt in Round 1.
Trust me, I’d gladly take a submarine in SZ 8 over just about any other bid in realistic circumstances.
As risky as the attack on Norway is, so also is the attack on SZ2. There’s a 50% chance there to wind up with only 1 bomber or less. Feels like too much of a coin toss to me, except tails really hurts and heads isn’t always clearly great. It is not a battle in which retreat is acceptable, because that means the BB heals.
The Russian response it to hit Ukraine/W. Russia, and watch the Germans take a very risky series of attacks. I would be very squeamish to attack SZ2, Egypt, and SZ13 like Jen says. That means sending 1 inf 1 arm 1 fig to Egypt, 3 figs 1 bb 1 tran to Gibraltar, and 1 fig 1 bom 2 sub to SZ2. There’s absolutely no more that you can bring to Egypt since the Ukraine fighter is dead, the bomber is off to SZ2, and there’s no bid in Libya. There’s a humongous compound chance of something going horribly wrong between Egypt and SZ2.
It seems to me like a Russian triple - except the odds are crappier and the risks involve fighters.
@Cmdr:
The attack on Norway is very risky. Even if the Submarine in SZ 8 isn’t used to kill the second British Battleship in SZ 2 because the Russian’s killed the fighter in Norway, the risk of losing the Russian fighter is pretty high and most Russian’s, because of it, won’t make the attack.
With a second Submarine in SZ 8 you still kill Egypt, Battleship in SZ 13 as well as Battleship, Transport in SZ 2.
And even if you DONT kill the Egyptians and the British come into the Med. You can always put the Battleship/Transport back in SZ 14 and put a carrier (fighters from land) and 3 Submarines in SZ 14 with them and bulk up in Libya instead of attacking Egypt in Round 1.
Trust me, I’d gladly take a submarine in SZ 8 over just about any other bid in realistic circumstances.
Put the battleship back in SZ 14? Then you’re probably not killing the british BB in 13…or you’re sacrificing a plane or two (or three!) to do it. And if you’re not killing the british BB…well, I thought killing both BBs was the whole point of this submarine bid.
And you suggest spending your entire budget on navy? 3 submarines? Meanwhile you build no ground troops and Russia rolls right over you? Honestly this sounds like one of the worst strategies you could come up with.
