Revisiting the Kill Japan First (KJF) 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.

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?

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.

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.

I have no problem with loosing 2-3 figs if i can clear the Uk navy out on G1 (uually you end up with 1-2 lost).

That’d be interesting to fight against, is it something you want to try in a fun/friendly game, Jen?