KJF Round 1

I do agree that beginners should stick to the London factory.  It does require skill pulling off the india IC.  But It just depends on how you and your allies play the game.  If each of you are gonna do your own thing, the game will certainly be over quicker than usual.  Thats the key…… Teamwork and persistance.  Control the game by limiting the enemy of options.  Do this and you’ll win no matter who you are.

Well I like an American Pacific offensive more and more because I find that Japan cannot keep pace in the fleet wars and build up a land force to threaten Moscow at the same time.  Either it loses the fleet battle (which means Japan will lose half its income) or it can only send a token force against the Russians.  So I go Pacific whenever I can.  But if USA starts with a disadvantage in the Pacific (this will be most games), it is not the best strategy.  The best players will adapt their strategy to what is happening in the game.

@Fabius:

Hello everybody this is my first message, I’m an Italian player of A&A and I would like to know your impressions on this KJF strategy.

First Round:
UK: purchase 2 transport 1 Inf 1 Arm and attacks Norway with 2 Inf 1 Arm 1 Artillery (assuming Germany uses his Atlantic Submarine with the fighters to destroy the Brits Battelship in Med). Uk destroyer goes from India to S59 and destroy the Jap transport. Uk moves his South African Inf to Kenya (assuming Germany destroyed Brits in Angloegypt) and Persian Inf to India.
Uk also moves the Indian Fleet in S30 and also the Australian Fleet.
Uk also moves one armor from East Canada to Alaska, and one Inf from West Canada to Alaska.

What do you think?

I think I’m either going to take London or destroy your North Sea fleet on G2.

Also, an IC in Alaska doesn’t seem a good use of ipcs–-why not buy an extra AC with that cash or consider a Sink IC?  In the strat you describe Japan is going to get rich on mainland ICs which will allow them to buy air to resist the dual fleet threat.

@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 think Japan must attack the US at Pearl.  It is far more dangerous to leave the US fleet in Pearl than the UK fleet in Sz 30.

Some players will sink both, but there are pros and cons for that on both sides.

If I’m Japan, I’ll usually leave that merged fleet and deal with it later if I have to with the full J Navy/airforce.  I could run into trouble if the Allies do go Pac strat, but I prefer to limit my J1 attacks and attack heavy (such as sending everything I can to Pearl and everything else to China).

In response to the KJF Bluff…

NEVER change strats during a game.  If you are going KJF, STAY KJF.  Otherwise, just go KGF, and STICK WITH IT.

Trying to bluff in the Pacific as the US leaves the Axis with economic dominance, and with USA and UK in NO position to assist a dying Russia.

@Jennifer:

6 Transports = 48 IPCs + 15 IPCs for Industrial Complex.  Total: 63 IPCs
12 Transports = 96 IPCs.  Total: 96 IPCs

That is not an equivalent comparison.

Norway is only 3 IPC, so it can only produce 3 units.  So 1.5 TRNs worth of units.

US sets up 4x4, requiring 8 TRNs to get 8 divisions to Europe per round.  With a Norway IC, to still get 8 divisions requires 6 TRN plus Norway production (they do get 1 extra unit this way).

But for UK… 3 IPC’s is about 15% of their mid-game income.  And as I said, that means eitehr keeping ARM in the mix for them to TRN, or allows 3 INF to be upgraded to ART, and thus add 6 points to their attack (an extra dead German every round).

US only needs 64 IPC’s of TRN’s to send a full 8 divisions to Europe every round.  And if UK can keep their income to where they can fill their 4 TRNs, that is 16 divisions per turn.  And that is serious trouble for Germany.

The rule for holding VC’s is that at teh end of the US’s move (the complete turn of play) X number of VC’s are controlled by one side or the other.

8 VC’s is basically an Axis win (except in very special cases like a 2 turn limit test game where Russia goes suicidal in defense of the Allied VC’s)

Instead of 8, play for 9 for victory.

When one side or the other controls 9 VC’s at the end of a turn, then there is basically no doubt as to what side won.