How do you counter KJF?

I thought the best strategy to counter KJF was to KRF with Germany, since the Allies are ignoring you.

Yea, KAF is the sole reason people started building infantry in W. USA and walking to E. Canada.  Slower assault into Europe, but Japan has no real ability to do anything to N. America.

@ncscswitch:

To get THAT much Japan hardware in range of the US for J2 would mandate that Japan was effectively going KUSA, with commensurate loss of income in Asia.

Not really.

7 Infantry, 2 Fighters attack China with the two fighters coming from Manchuria and FIC.  These fighters can land in Japan.
3 Fighters, Battleship, Carrier, Destroyer, Submarine, Bomber attack SZ 52
Fighter, Infantry, Armor attack Hawaii

2 Fighters from the SZ 52 battle can land in SZ 45 on the carrier and battleship from SZ 37

now, without building a darn thing you already have:

2 Battleships
2 Carriers
6 Fighters
1 Transport
1 Destroyer
1 Submarine* (If it was not lost)

vs

1 Battleship
1 Transport
1 Destroyer
3 Fighters (Assumes the fighter was lost in Hawaii)
2 Aircraft Carriers

I did not give up anything in Asia, but I did station everything in range of America.  The transport in SZ 52 can easily pick up units in Solomons to attack Australia with two bombardments if I don’t need them.

Or, don’t attack Hawaii and add 1 fighter to the defensive forces, but don’t risk losing your infantry and armor in the process.

Odds:

Attacker: 2 Battleships, 2 Carriers, Transport, Submarine, Destroyer, 6 Fighters (2 Fighters in SZ 52 can attack and land back on Wake), Bomber (assumed stationed at Wake where it can again land)

Defender: Battleship, 2 Carriers, Transport, Destroyer, 4 Fighters

(note, this does not take into account any builds for Japan that may or may not be in range of SZ 55.)

I have the Japanese winning over 99% of the time with losses of transport, submarine, 2 fighters.  I believe that is a rather good trading position for Japan.

I will just say that there can be no Bombers or Aircraft Carriers with out advanced flight.

And I prefer to use “boat anchor” place of “cat”

@Woodstock:

In this thread, the G1 AC + 3 TRN buy seems to put quite a load on both UK and USA, right to RND2 at least.

If you know what you are doing, then AC+3T can be a very good buy.

If you dont, you can be defeated much easier.

@newpaintbrush:

So are you saying that the Norway-Wrus-Ukr attack is bad for LL and for ADS for the SAME REASONS?  No, of course not.  See my last post.  Would you like to expound on the idea that what is good for ADS is good for LL and vice versa?  For I disagree.

My contention is that what is good in LL is good in ADS HOWEVER what is good in ADS may not be good in LL.
My point about the nor/wrus/ukr battle is that just b/c you may succeed in certian battles (either individual battles here and there or a few battles taken in the same turn) in LL way way way more in ADS does not make it a sound strategy for the entire game.  And I laid out just a couple of example where you could have high odds battles but it hurts you in the long run (the Moscow scenerio and the crazy ala move etc.)

It is much easier to translate LL strats to ADS.

I don’t think I said this triple would “inevitablely” fail in LL, I believe I said it “may” fail which in a way would confirm what the ADS odds told you in rd 1.
I certainly think there could be a coerrelation between LL odds and ADS odds.

Due to the nature of LL we know you can have a battle of a 100% success, which in ADS may be 90-95%.  I don’t think it is then unreasonable to think that multiple battles in LL where you have 80% success awould translate to maybe 65% in ADS.  Thus it isn’t unreasonable to think a LL battle with 60% success rate may then indeed be 40% in ADS (per your triple example).

So when playing a game in ADS if you have a threshold to actually go through with most battles (say you would like a 60-70% chance to succeed in ADS) that does not mean you’d have 60-70 in LL, the LL odds would probably be much closer to 80.  So when you see a battle at 40% success in ADS it should probably tell you that you have maybe 60% or so in LL BUT those AREN’T great odds for LL, considering you can be much more efficient in your attacks in LL.

60% odds are not that great for LL, considering the best LL players probably should win about 75-80% of their games.  Why lower your standards to 60%?  It just doesn’t make sense to me.  Maybe it is a good opening and causes enough damage to Germany, but I think it can leave Russia a bit too thin.

And yes there are times where 1-1 is a good trade and even times where you come out on the low end but the battle can still be deemed a success, but I don’t think Russia 1 is that time esp since the Axis can usually make an Africa push and Japan can make early gains in Asia, and it still takes the UK/US a few turns to get their shuck going.

Edit:

I should also say that by strat, I mean a series of moves (or buys) that take place over several turns not something a player may do in only one move or one turn.

I guess the reason I have always taken the back door approach to attacking Germany via Russia is b/c from my experience US and/or UK can take WE but Germany just reallocates forces to WE instead of sending them to the Russian front. In the end I see it as Germany is going to buy those troops any way whats it matter where they are fought? So I pick the Russian front another reason being lets just say Russia and Germany are going one for one (not likely but for sake of debate lets just say its so) any UK or US forces are just icing on the cake to repel Germany. Then I tend to be bi-est to my Allied 1, 2, 3 punch. It also works when the Axis are taking down Moscow, lead with Germany and mop up with Japan before Russia gets their turn. I don’t think I would rather Japan have the capital I think Germany should take it in order to deal with Great Britain on their door step, but desperate times call for desperate measures.  :evil:

@Dragoon_Blade:

I’m just how to get a KJF first strategy to work, especially since my teammate here at college wants to try a successful one.  But the two big problems that I see are actually cracking Japan, since it is harder to stop it capital, and how Russia can deal with the massive behemoth Germany baring down on it.

Here’s hoping for some critique of ideas and some suggestions (also note, no bid to the axis)  (my teammate and I will be both playing Russia, I’ll have Britain, and he’ll have the US)  I’m also assuming Germany r1, specifically since that is what the Germany player usually does.

Russia building 4 inf/3 art, I like having a little offensive punch  thinking just attacking West Russia, using 2 inf, 1ftr Karelia, 3 inf, 1arm Archangel, 3 inf, 1 art, 2 arm moscow, and 1 at least 1 art caucasus.  Moving 6 inf into Buryatia, 2 yakut, 2 sinkang, 2 persia.  Germany will probably take Anglo, Karelia, and send 3-4 fighters and sub against the UK battleship.

The UK will be placing a IC in India, trying to hit japanese sub, and probably hitting the sz 59 transport with the fighter.  British bomber will be going to Siankang.  The US will be building an IC in Sinkang however, we not sure on how much should the US put in Navy against Japan.  I’m hoping to convince my teammate to go after the islands with his fleet when it is built up enough.

My questions I have are
1)  Do I write off Africa to Germans, and with that much more IPC to Germany, can Russia with less than half of Britain IPCs helping, hold off Germany until Japan is cracked?
2) What should I do with my indian fleet, try to help the americans?
3) Does America send anything against Germany?

Thanks for the help.
[/quote

If you want KJF done right, you had better remember the secret herbs and spices.

I’m gonna ask you a coupla dumbass questions.  Then I’m gonna give a lot of smart-ass answers.  Tee heez.  No, srsly, these comments should help.  Maybe.  If you dare to think about what I’m writing.

Let us SAY that you are playing rock paper scissors.

Now let us say that you have DECIDED for some wacky reason that players will NOT SHOW THEIR HANDS SIMULTANEOUSLY.  One player shows, then the other.

To make things REALLY wacky, the second player doesn’t even have to decide what he has to choose until AFTER he sees what the first player chose.

Wow, this sounds like a hell of an easy game, doesn’t it?

Now, HERES THE TRICKY PART.

Your opponent wants YOU to decide WHO GOES FIRST.

WHAT DO YOU DO?

THINK HARD.

I have just answered all your questions.  Mostly kind of sort of.

–

–1)  Do I write off Africa to Germans, and with that much more IPC to Germany, can Russia with less than half of Britain IPCs helping, hold off Germany until Japan is cracked?

Answer:  If the Germans really want Africa, let 'em have it.  If you eat up Europe while the Germans eat up Africa - you win!

What should I do with my indian fleet, try to help the americans?

Answer:  As opposed to, say, helping the mighty Russian fleet?  No, just kidding.  Seriously, you should base your moves with the Indian fleet on the German move.  If it looks like you’ll want to KJF, you might want to unify the UK fleets.  If you want to KGF, you might want to suicide the UK fleet.

Does America send anything against Germany?

Answer:  Really depends on what Germany bought.  If Germany looks ripe for a KGF, go for it.
[/quote]