KJF Round 1

@Cmdr:

But again, those are just my most humble opinions.  I would never tell a player how they should play their game, especially when I cannot see the development of the board from round to round.

OMG.  Who are you?  What have you done with Jen?

Lol.

?

LMAO, I was typing the same thing almost word for word, what is that 6 “humbles”

:roll:
I can’t even bring myself to read her stuff anymore, gives me a headache :-P

Do you build IC at Sin if you buy IC at India in UK2, Jen? I think India needs Sinkiang and viceversa. I’m interested in it, Jen. Could you link me a game were you used this tactic?

@Crazy:

:roll:
I can’t even bring myself to read her stuff anymore, gives me a headache :-P

Thou art smited for thy hostile nature towards my, most humble, advise.

@Funcioneta:

Do you build IC at Sin if you buy IC at India in UK2, Jen? I think India needs Sinkiang and vice-versa. I’m interested in it, Jen. Could you link me a game were you used this tactic?

If, after Japan’s first move, if I have decided to go the industrial complex route with America and England, I will purchase the Industrial Complex for China on USA 1 and the Industrial Complex for India on UK 2.  This provides Japan with, in my humble opinion, two quandaries to face them on Japan 1.

Obviously I believe that the Indian complex is a higher priority for Japan than the Chinese complex due to the relative ease of Russia to send reinforcements to China.  However, not all will believe this.  In either event, Japan, in my opinion - humble as it is - cannot afford to take out both industrial complexes, reinforce it’s fleet to stave off the Americans and assist Germany in attacking Russia.

If, by some twist of fate, I should find myself in ownership of two or more of the orange territories on the mainland (Usually Kwangtung and Manchuria since it is my, personal, experience that Japan puts a Complex in Fr. Indo China on round 1 and there-after, cannot afford a second one) then I will most assuredly put a second complex in Sinkiang, maybe even a third in Manchuria or Kwangtung if America owns them. (This allows 7 ground units to be placed, keeping all 3 starting transports busy and building up a reserve of troops if needed.)

As for a link to the Asian strategy, alas, I cannot remember the last time I went this route.  In my, most humble, opinion, this is the hardest process of dismantling Japan.

If I may suggest, I would not go this route if Japan did not get clobbered by the defending Chinese.  If Japan attacked with 5 or 6 infantry and lost all or all but one of them, it may be viable (since there is now no direct threat to the Sinkiang complex on Japan 2).  Otherwise, building the complex on USA 1 may result in the complex falling on Japan 2.

Shadow,

Who are you playing that does not attack Egypt with Germany on round 1, and can you please hook me up with him?  I need a new sucker.  8-)

Seriously, no use in even THINKING of having that fighter in Egypt.  I rather wonder why we don’t just get together with some of the other clubs and just alter the game board to reflect the most likely out comes and start the game at round 2.  Russia’s pretty scripted now, Germany and England too, the only real changes come in Japan and America.

@captainjack:

I’m playing a 4-player F2F game tonight, and my friend and I are the Allies.  We are planning on trying a KJF (or SJF) and I just wanted to get some thoughts on our Round 1 plans.
Russia1: buy 5 inf, 1 art, 1 arm; take Belorussia and West Russia, land one fig in Yakut, as well as one tank.  5-6 inf stack in Bury, 2 inf from Novo to Sink, sub to SZ6 (to block German navy from SZ3).
UK1: buy IC (for India), trn, inf, art; amph assault to Norway w/ or w/out air depending on what Germany does with the Navy, 4 inf stack in India, move TransJ inf to Egypt (these guys never attack Egypt on R1). move tank from Egypt to Persia, Indian ocean fig to attack Kwang trn and land in China, Indian ocean fleet and Aussy fleet to meet in SZ38, fig from Egypt to land on AC in 38.
US1: amph to Algeria and clean up Africa, Hawaiian fig and the bomber to land in Bury, consolodate fleet in SZ55, IC in Sink.
Any thoughts?

If you are going to KJF, you need a US pacific fleet, not a sink IC. You also need a UK bomber w/in range to sink japan transports should they be dumb and buy 3 for you to sink.

But rather than get opinions, play it out and learn. Nothing says “fun” better than trial and error. :)

@Cmdr:

A)  You could go to the battleship dominance strategy building an Industrial Complex, Aircraft Carrier, 2 infantry and an armor on Round 1 (the complex to go to Alaska) and then 1 or 2 battleships a round thereafter until such time you can overwhelm and destroy the Japanese fleet.

How do you defend that complex from japanese round 2 attack with all available transporters (maybe four) and perhaps fighters from CV before pearl harbour, perhaps a BB too?
There can be two inf (one us, one british), one tank (british), one bomber and three fighters at Alaska. But two of that fighters will be needed to secure the us fleet before WUS, I think. And if you use the transport to bring two additional inf to Alaska that tranny will be dead.
Do you sacrifice that tranny and risk one fighter to hold the newly build IC, or do you accept the loss of Alaska and counter it with five inf from WCA (fifth from Midway), tank and air?

@ShadowHAwk:

If germany does not take or attack egypt on turn 1 you can verry easy defend india from japan.

Not attacking Anglo-Egypt on G1 is probably due to one of three reasons.

1.  Germany is retarded

2.  Germany is not retarded, but there is something else that is SOOOO GOOOOD for Germany that Germany won’t pass it up.

3.  Germany is not retarded, but there is something else that is pretty darn good that Germany decided to do.

–

Germany should and almost certainly will hit Anglo-Egypt.  If Germany does NOT, it’s probably because Germany is opening up a really big can of whoop-a** somewhere else.

In which case India may be a secondary concern after all.

I agree, if Germany does NOT hit Anglo-Egypt, then yeah, India is lotz easier to defend.  But do you want to defend India, is what I’m saying here.

We were used to play f2f games 2 Vs 2 and usually we did not use any bid.

We perfom the attack in this way:

• 1 sub three fighters attack Gibraltar BB;
• 1 BB, 1 fig, 1 TRN (1 inf 1 art) attack Suez DD;
• 2 inf, 1 art, 1 tank, 1 fig, 1 bmb attacck 1 inf, 1 tank, 1 fig in Egypt;

Now we are using bid for axis and if Germany places bid on the Eastern front the attack in the mediterranean are performed in the same way as described above.

I think that Anglo-Egypt forces and Gibraltar BB have to be destroyed on R1.

Answering to second question first: 1 Inf and 1 art are picked up in Southern Europe.

I usually prefer to bring artillery and leave the tank in Europe because I prefer to send all the available panzers in Eastern Europe in G1 to keep Red Army at bay. But some time I send the panzer in Africa instead of the artillery.
Generally sending the panzer is better than sending the artillery: they have the same die points of 1 inf and 1 art (4) but suffered less from skew, moreover panzer may blitz and having two of them help more in grabbing away UK IPC.

How I decide from the two options? I will expose my thoughts but you may decide basing on differents evaluation, the following are only my opinions.

If there is need of more offensive punch in the trading of territories on the russian front or if Germany have lost the fighter in Ukraine in R1 i prefer to leave artillery in Europe for the addictional punch in trading territories. Usually I do not use tanks in those battles.
If Russia has been cautious attacking Belorussia and West Russia or West Russia alone, or if Russia has taken a lot of losses in R1 and an opening for a initial German advance is possible, in those cases I leave the panzer in Eastern Europe.

Another thing to consider for the choice between the art and the tank is the fact that the UK could hit two times in defense leaving two panzers in Anglo-Egypt thay may be promptly counter-attacked in UK1.

My tipical German G1 purchases are:

10 inf + 2 Panzers OR
10 inf + 1 fighters OR
8 inf + 4 art

this are ordinary buying.

Sometime I am willing to be more offensive and I buy:
5 inf 5 panzers
8 panzers

and some other time I am willing to play with ships:
1 AC + 8 inf

The first three buying give more solidity to Germany.

Naturally I have not invented nothing I have only read here: http://www.axisandallies.org/taxonomy/term/29

Arrr, captain jack, you thread pirrrate u.

Better start a new thread and label it “Please advise: Germany Turn 1 with No Bid” or some such thing.

This ain’t KJF Round 1 no more.

Arrr!

Which fleet? Those ships in the seazone 5?  :-D

Well I do not care at all, if UK wants to sink them he can. My first priority is to build up my army.

Churchill said that a strong fleet is a necessity for UK but is a luxury for Germany.

Naturally you may build ships with Germany and you may use them to create a lot of problems to allies. Sometimes I try to become a naval power with Germany but it give less solidity on the gorund.

@captainjack:

without a G1 naval buy, how do you protect your baltic fleet from the Brits?

Destroyer, Transport, 2 Submarines from SZ 5 to SZ 7
Transport, Battleship from SZ 14 to SZ 15

Let England attack you in SZ 7 and then you can crush him with your air-force and navy.

or

Submarine to SZ 7, Submarine to SZ 3, Transport, Destroyer to SZ 6

or

Just leave them all in SZ 5 and take out two or three British aircraft and lose the navy.

Just a few suggestions.

Honestly, my Round 1 German Purchases have been going more to the 5 Infantry, Fighter, Bomber route lately.  Something nice about 6 or 7 fighters and 2 bombers on Germany 2.