KJF Round 1

@Funcioneta:

@Subotai:

The KGF strat is not about ignoring Japan, no countries can be ignored, it’s just that allies cant do much against Japan for the first 2 rnds, and Japan can be partially ignored early in the game. The KGF strat involves slowing Japan down as much as possible, but most resources goes against Germany.
The reason why KGF is most popular among the best players is because a good axis player will make a too strong Germany if only Russia and UK tries to stop them.

And there is no such thing as KGF fanmania, it’s about the-most-effective-strat-fanmania :)

There is not really a KGF for many (99%) Revised games. A true KGF will include some US naval units to Pacific to distract Japan and force fight it … I only had seen a true KGF once in my PBEM games and it was in AA50. 99% of players do a Try Ignore Japan strat that includes sending all stuff to Europe and Africa, even the starting Pacific fleets. Most (99%) of players will counter this making a JTDTM, while some others will counter with a Polar Expres, that’s why I call the “so-called KGF” a “Try Ignore Japan (if you can)”
Allies can do a Ignore Japan strat only if Japan lets them. In my games I noticed that Polar Express is, at least, as good as JTDTM, and I’m pretty sure that Polar Express can improve because it has been used less (many play by memory with TIJ-KGF)

The funny thing is when in some games Japan gets diced J1 and anyway allied player lets Japan breath and TIJ just because they think that a Pacific Fleet is useless

My point is that in this or any future A&A games many players will never stop from trying ignore Japan, no wonder how bad idea is, how many income have Pacific Ocean and mainland Asia, how bad gets Japan diced, how good can be Polar Express or how boring can be ignoring Japan. KGF is a religion

If they try that in Global 1940, Japan will destroy everyone with its 2 BB, 3 CV, and lots of transports/income.

As I said above I’m not that keen on sea lion myself. and if the conditions are unfavorable (like Russia took Ukr) than to hell with it.

Additionally I want to remind you that I would spend only 1 die on tech so germany can build new troops on G1 for 35 ipc.

@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 like Hawaii/Australia on Round 2
New Zealand/Madagascar on Round 3

I can go back to Hawaii if America’s a nuisance or I can pick up islanders on the way to Buryatia.

@Nix:

But im all for the hit Japan first thing (not neccesarily killing him), but he can´t be let free to roam Asia/Africa/Australia-new zeeland…   it´s devestating for the allies, and more importantly the Russians.

If russia stacks Buryatia, puts 2 arm in yakut, UK kills the kwang trn (witch i failed to do twice in a row…), UK attacks FIC with 3 inf, 1 fig, lands fig in Sinkiang), Assembles UK Pacific fleet in SZ30.

USA can then choose how to do things, same for Russia and UK on turn 2.

Germany and Japan have allready shown their hand, and with 1 Trn Buryatia attack is risky, even if Pearl is ignored, if Fic was wiped, China will be harder, Sinkiang IC would look tempting.

If japan ignores pearl US have got a free carrier/sub/fig that can be nasty in the long run…

But my bottom line is Japan can´t be set loose unrestrained.

If anyone wants to monitor this in action see the league game between Nix and myself. ;)

We have strayed into House Rules.  Further discussion along those lines needs to be moved to the House Rules area.

I have to disagree with abandoning India so Quickly.  In order for japan to be sucessful it needs focus on attacking and holding the mainland. (which includes taking control of  China, the Russian controlled  part of Asia, and India,  as fast as it can.) If Japan buys 1 or 2  IC’s  on its first turn, The main land is going to be extremely bare when its Uk’s 2nd turn. So my advice is not build an IC on India but take the transport from india, and pick up the guy from South Africa, and move the persian guy into India. ( If the Japan decides to attack your Fleet so  be it,  You will leave the Jap fleet very weak and it will be easier for the U.S fleet to handle. )

Don’t worry about Africa, the U.S. should always be ones who control Africa. The U.S can land 5 peices on Africa the first turn.( 2 men 1 artillary, 1 tank, and a plane.) Eventually you will have to pull out of  India and thats when  the small uk force can A. move into the Caucus’s or B. Help the U.S control Africa.

To add to ydavid’s comment, czech out the explanation that it gives, as far as “you could move a fighter from Hawaii to the East Indies in one turn, as long as you control both island groups.” Without Island Bases, your fighters couldn’t go anywhere near that far.

Basically it only helps the US in the Pacific.