KJF Round 1

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.

@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.

@Krieghund:

Actually, Opening Fire occurs in every round of combat, not just once.

Thus, the confusion.

@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.

@rjclayton:

@ncscswitch:

So it a 1/0 or 0/1 is $2, what do you charge for a 1/1?

Driver2: Hey, hey Willy how’s it goin?
Toll Booth Willy: Hey can’t complain pup. How’s by you?
Driver2: Oh great great. How much?
Toll Booth Willy: The state charge is a dawla twenty five pup.
Driver2: That’s fine. Now should I give you the money or should I just shove the quarters directly up your fat a** Hee Heeeee (throws quarters, drives off)
Toll Booth Willy: WHY YOU FCKIN HAAAD ON! I’LL FCKING COTTONFISH YOU’RE FCKING HEAD WITH A LOUISVILLE FCKIN SLUGGAH! WHADDYA THINKA THAT SS FCK?!

I think that’s a pretty sweet post right there, is what I think.

Like the comment about $2 instead of $1 too.

Well, ya all know me, the AC in SZ 5 is the biggest waste of Cash this side of, well, this side of anything!  I’d rather have 4 fighters or 2 bombers and a fighter to an Aircraft Carrier in SZ 5….(SZ 14 is a different story.)

Of course, you all know this means in the Tourney I’ll be building AC’s in SZ 5 cause no one will expect me too. :P

Except that you are forgetting that Japan will have around $40 IPC aimed at Russia also while the UK and US safely bomb Germany and rely on Russia to fight the ground war.  Which would work… except for those 14 divisions per turn coming at Moscow from the east…

It seems that you aren´t doing so well back in Europe.
In a KJF game Germany normally can take Egypt on G1 and then whole Africa and Tr.J. and Persia in the next 2 rounds without the use of big armies.
Meanwhile you can also threaten Caucasus and later on Moscow and don´t forget about London, because Uk sometimes forgets itself,
In many games you can also easily outbuild the UK navy if Uk isn´t putting much into Eu. waters and threaten London, Brazil or force the US to protect Eastern US with more soldiers, pulling pressure of Japan.