Posts made by jiman79

I have a follow up question  :-D

Does the presence of a defending subs in a seazone, from where an amphibious assault will take place, cancel the bombardment for cruisers and battleships?
(Even though the sub submerges?)

I see the problem with the India IC being very difficult to defend.

Perhaps a KJF strategy article should start with the role of the US.
A guide to building a pacific fleet, when to move it etc…
In order to call a strategy KJF, it must require full focus on Japan from the US.
If US divides its forces it is my experience, that it ends up being ineffective.

UK has options in which role to play in a KJF scenario.
India IC (Or maybe even SA or Australia IC). (This is what I would call a pure KJF move)
Atlantic fleet (shuttling through Norway/Karelia/Archangel or Africa). (A balanced KJF stra
Or maybe even extensive strategic bombing of Germany.

My current favourite UK strategy in a KJF scenario is to establish a navy endin up in sz12 shuttling british troops through Africa.
The threat of a landing in Europe should keep Germany honest. Possesion of Africa and Australia through most of the game should keep UK at a solid income.
SZ12 should be reasonably safe, since its a KJF the Japan planes do probably not end up in Europe, and if Germany purchases air or navy to threathen the UK fleet, it is possible to reinforce it from Washington.

@Hobbes:

@jiman79:

Well it would make sense to me that armor has 2 moves regardless (except if it was part of combat or unloaded from a transport).

But the rules also do not allow an armor to move 1 territory before being loaded to a transport, which I also think intuitively should be allowed.

Similar idea but the question then would be: why not also after being loaded?

Unloading ends the transporters turn regardless of prior number of moves, so to me it makes sense that it also ends the cargo’s turn.

Well it would make sense to me that armor has 2 moves regardless (except if it was part of combat or unloaded from a transport).

But the rules also do not allow an armor to move 1 territory before being loaded to a transport, which I also think intuitively should be allowed.

@Bunnies

I fully agree with the chess analogy.
The best strategy will change over time, even though A&A has less possibilities for variants than chess IMO.

HKL brings up the dilemma of the UK1 commitment.
Buying an IC and placing it on India UK1 is the point of no return, and gives Japan full knowledge of what the Allies strategy is.
Waiting untill UK2 with the India IC is very difficult. Since this would mean India is missing the units from the UK2 (and UK3) purchase.

I was hoping that Hobbes with his KJF analysis, could come with a suggestion on what to do (or not to do).
Is an India IC in general poor play?
Is it possible to wait one round - maybe buying air UK1 and still establish the IC?
Should an India IC be used to build up a UK navy in the Indian Ocean to join with a US Pacific Fleet?
Or should the IC produce ground units and try to push Japan of the Asian mainland, along with UK air from London?
Which UK1 attacks supports this strategy the best (Egypt or FIC, Bury stack etc.)?
How should the US build up a strong pacific navy fast enough to come to aid?

@ Hobbes

Have you come any closer to a viable KJF strategy in A&A42?

I find it very difficult to think of a scenario, where KJF is feasible, and basically it requires bad Axis play or lucky dice to win with this strategy.

But in order for the game to remain interesting, I think it is necessary to have alternative strategies.

A: If the seazone is occupied by enemy units, your bombardment is wasted. BB is participating in the carrier fight.

B: Land and Sea zones are always divided - so it is two defensive territories and no unit can defend both. Wake Island is a territory - it just does not have any IPC value.

Some borderline cases:
1: an IC on a land zone can produce sea units (and fighters if there is a carrier available) directly in the neighbouring sea zones.

2: In a sea battle, where a defender has a carrier and fighters, if the carrier is lost, the fighters must land in a friendly land zone or on a carrier one move away. Or it is lost.

Yes there is nothing special about fighters in this sense - but the bombardment is only possible if
1: It is an amphibious assault, where land troops are deployed from a transport
2: The cruiser/battleship did not participate in a naval battle prior to the amphibious assault

The cruiser/battleship only fires once prior to the first round of combat.
You can maximum bombard with one cruiser/battleship per land unit deployed.

Usually it will be other units than a fighter selected as casualties in the first round of an amphibious assault. But in rare cases where fighters are alone in the territory, for instance if the allies landed planes on Gibraltar, the scenario with bombardment of planes can occur.

@Bunnies:

I don’t consider 6 infantry on Buryatia to mean much unless there’s a fighter there as well.

Japan can send 3 inf 1 tank 3 fighter 1 battleship bombard there while still having 5 infantry 2 fighter for China and 1 sub 1 cruiser 1 fighter 1 bomber for the US Hawaiian Islands fleet.

UK may have taken preventative measures by attacking French Indochina, but that has its own set of drawbacks for the Allies, as do various moves Russia and UK may make in the India-Africa region.

With 6 inf on Bury there is a 45% chance that 3 inf 1 tank 3 fig 1 BB will suffer 4 hits or more.

So it is a risky battle for Japan on J1. Landing the UK India fig there is of course a viable option, but it also makes it unable to participate in combat on UK1 (it can take out the lone Japan transporter).

A succesfull FIC attack forces Japan to choose between China, Bury and sz52 (and recapturing FIC). But FIC only makes sense if Bury was stacked IMO.

That also happened R2, but UK failed to retake Egypt, so G had a solid income. And the relatively wealthy USSR had to pay IC repair, which neutralized the gain from controlling Ukraine.
Along with the threat from the giant luftwaffe, UK+US took some time establishing a joint shuck to Norway, and by the time it was established, Japan was on Russias doorstep, and the Japs where sending 3 bombers to Russia/Cauc, while Germans where keeping UK down to buying 3-4 inf a round.

In this scenario the strategic bombing and bad luck in Africa killed me. But I would not mind having another go at this strategy, I think I would win 3 out of 4.

Don’t remind me  :-D
I just lost a game, where my Axis opponent opened with a 3 bomber buy and during the game he did more than 150 IPCs worth of damage I only managed to shoot down 1 bomber.
A strategic bombing strategy can be very effective, but it is all about rolling them ones with the AA gun.

With the 42 rules of inflicting damage on a specific IC - Strategig bombing is less effective, since both Germany and Russia (the typical targets for strategig bombing) can produce units elsewhere and often do not need to pay the entire damage.

That is probably also why bombers are cheaper in the 42 version.

Thanks for the responce Bunnies - yes I did not cover every option, just the more frequent ones and an art instead of arm slightly changes odds.

Just to clarify I mean the cost of not retaking Egypt is 2-4 IPC per round (depending if it is 2 or 1 arm).
And in contrast to hitting Borneo or FIC the IPC deficit is permanent so it is both a gain for Germany and a loss for UK.
So individually Egypt is much more valuable than the other battles, and in many cases also less risky. So unless you are planning some sort of KJF, an Egypt attack is more feasible IMO.

Regarding hitting the G battleship UK1, I have never tried it, but I often end in the situation with just winning with one unit in Egypt.
The odds for a Egypt counter + taking out bb are actually quite good. And if succesfull, this effectively kills Germanys hope of significant income from a campaign in Africa. And UK often ends up loosing one fig to this BB anyway on UK2, if this is when you prefer targeting the G med fleet.
This move I find comparable (but less risky) to the greedy G1 opening with both hitting sz2 and the US cruiser +2 Transporters or the Japan version taking out both sz52 and the bb+transp on the western US shore.

High risk, high reward!

UK often has a tough choice to make in round 1 regarding, where to perform an attack using the India transporter, cruiser and CV+fig.

As I see it, there are 3 options:
Retake Egypt
Attack French Indo China
Attack Borneo

Egypt:
3 inf can be used to retake Egypt along with a fig and a cruiser shot.
Against 2 arm+inf             47% winning with at least 1 inf
20% only fig survives
5% everybody dies
28% 1+ G arm left

Against 2 arm 83% winning with at least 1 inf
9% only fig survives
3%  everybody dies
5%  1+ G arm left

Same battle without the cruiser shot:
Against 2 arm+inf             33% winning with at least 1 inf
19% only fig survives
6%  everybody dies
42%  1+ G arm left

Against 2 arm 71% winning with at least 1 inf
14%  only fig survives
4%  everybody dies
11% 1+ G arm left

Against 1 armor the odds are 99% with the cruiser, 98% without the cruiser and if you are using the fig elsewhere,
3 inf against 1 arm has:      82% chance of winning with at least 1 inf
                                          3 % everybody dies, and
                                          15% 1 G arm left.

If the fig is left out of the Egypt battle it can instead try to take out the G battleship with assistance from a bomber from London (18% both air, 45% bomb, 21% all dead, 17% bb survives). If successful this would end Germanys Africa campaign on UK1.

Attack FIC:

3 inf, fig, cruiser shot vs. 2 inf, fig
                                            45% winning with at least 1 inf
18% only fig survives
9%  everybody dies
16% J fig left
12% J fig + inf left

Without the cruiser shot, the odds are of course worse, but this also means that you can do something else with your transport and cruiser:
                                              27% winning with at least 1 inf
20% only fig survives
11%  everybody dies
22%  J fig left
21% J fig + inf left

Attack Borneo
with 2 inf + cruiser
                                            86% winning with at least 1 inf
3%  everybody dies
11% J wins

Without cruiser
                                            67% winning with at least 1 inf
5% everybody dies
28% J wins

The Borneo attack has much better odds than the FIC attack, however taking Borneo does not hold back Japan even a single round. J1 retakes Borneo J2 can hit India. But 4 IPCs is quite tempting

FIC is also on the way to Moscow for Japan, however, taking out some of the valuable Japan units placed on the Ásian mainland can be a huge victory. But only if Japan also is contested elsewhere (Bury+US pacific campaign), so that it is forced to take on risky battles.

The Eqypt attack only holds a direct value of 2IPC. However it effectively hinders Germany in picking up Africa early, which in IPCs is probably 2-4 IPCs the next two rounds (depending on the number of German units there), unless Allies does something else to regain Africa (SA IC etc.)

If G stacks Karelia with units from Norway, they either did not hit SZ2 or lost the fig+bomber. Otherwise they would need some protection.
Anyways this would invite to a KGF IMO, either to exploit that G is unable to hit an allied atlantic fleet, or simply to assist USSR asap (since as Bunnies stated they are on their heels).

@RFLMN:

I’m still do not fully understanding the collect income phase.  Do I RE-ADD all my territory IPCs plus conquered/gained territory IPCs?

Example:
Soviet Union
Start…… 24
purchased new units…(17)
BALANCE…7

Combat Phase—Conquered territory with IPC value of 3

QUESTION-
Do I now have 10 IPCs (balance of 7, plus 3 from newly conquered territory)
or
Do I have 34 IPCs (27 [24 from territories in my possession, PLUS 3 from newly conquered territory], ADDED TO the balance of 7 in the bank)

I am embarrassed to admit, the directions are very difficult to understand.  They appear to be written by an experienced player who has a previous understanding of certain facts, rules, or concepts that a new player is completely unaware of.

Thanks in advance.

You would have 34 IPC, exactly as the second option you describe.

@Hobbes:

_Germany: failing attack on Egypt  _
That would certainly help, I would say that Germany must not do to well in Egypt. 1 armor left is ok. If Germany sweeps Africa while the US fool around in the pacific, USSR will have a hard time.

If it fails I think it is a big incentive for KJF.

_UK: attacking Indochina and killing the J fighter  _
This I would consider a requirement, at least to take out the infantry, then a retreat could be considered. But always a risky battle

_UK: retaking Egypt from the Germans  _
Well you probably can�t do both this and FIC.
Or it will get risky, with Persia inf and trans Jordan inf + cruiser shot in Egypt and 3 inf + fig against 2 inf+fig in FIC.

This is the key issue to me right now - it seems all really depends on the UK move, because without that attack Japan isn’t pressured enough at the beginning. But not attacking Egypt means that you’ll be conceding Africa to the Germans.

So to boil it down, I think we can agree on Egypt+FIC being the key battles. Along with USSR doing well on USSR1+G1.

But to be honest I have a hard time finding scenarios, where a KJF is preferable to a KGF.
I am looking forward to your strategy paper.

I am currently doing some calculations and interpretations on the UK India fleet options UK1. I will probably post during the weekend.

I agree with the two different KJF scenarios Bunnies puts up. These are very different strategies depending on, where UK puts its focus.

Always hiding the UK carrier behind Madagascar on UK1 - this would mean you use the cruiser for the J transporter and do not use the cruiser bombardment in the amphibious assault on Egypt/FIC/Borneo?

@Rorschach:

all units end their turn when entering combat … except for blitzing tanks

And planes, and transports accompanying a navy performing a sea battle before an amphibious assault, not to mention the retreat option  :-)

I’m looking forward to that strategy article Hobbes. I nearly always start a game with the intent of doing a KJF, but early round dice usually makes me switch towards a traditional KGF instead.
I find some of your voting options a bit difficult to say yes or no to, so I’ll try to elaborate instead:
USSR: 6 INF on Buryatia
Stacking bury along with a FIC attack puts some pressure on the Japanese. But I would not call it a requirement. Japan can usually only attack 2 countries on the asian mainland - China should be on, and Bury the other. But if Japan only has 7 ground units, these attacks require a lot of support from air, which means that Japan probably skips sz52.

USSR: sinking the Med fleet on round
No I would consider this a job for the UK.

_USSR: Losing less units than average on R1 attacks _
Yes, a strong USSR is needed because it will have to stand alone against Germany for some rounds. If USSR1 goes bad I would aim for a strategy with british+US atlantic fleet and north passage shuttling of troops.

USSR: moving INF to Sinkiang
I would do this, to retake China, if I have intentions of a Sinkiang IC.

USSR: attacking Norway to prevent sinking of SZ2
No – this I consider a KGF move. Doing this is both risky and costly for the USSR in the head to head battle against Germany. Germany is likely to hit and take West Russia on G1.

_Germany: failing attack on Egypt _
That would certainly help, I would say that Germany must not do to well in Egypt. 1 armor left is ok. If Germany sweeps Africa while the US fool around in the pacific, USSR will have a hard time.

Germany: heavy ground losses on G1
Good yes, requirement no.

Germany: not stacking Karelia or Ukraine on G1
Difficult one to answer – I assume USSR bought 3inf 3 arm – so stacking Karelia or Ukraine could mean severe German losses to a USSR counter or strafe.

_Germany: not attacking West Russia on G1 _
A successful attack on West Russia makes it difficult to perform a KJF, since USSR can’t trade belo and Karelia next round, but this depends on what Germany then did not do, and which losses they suffered. Regardless I would probably go for a KGF in this scenario.

_Germany: naval purchase on G1 _
That certainly would be advantageous for a KJF in my opinion, since it should take some pressure of Russia. But not a requirement.

_UK: attacking Indochina and killing the J fighter _
This I would consider a requirement, at least to take out the infantry, then a retreat could be considered. But always a risky battle

_UK: retaking Egypt from the Germans _
Well you probably can’t do both this and FIC.
Or it will get risky, with Persia inf and trans Jordan inf + cruiser shot in Egypt and 3 inf + fig against 2 inf+fig in FIC.

_UK: conquering Borneo and/or New Guinea _
Again you can’t do both Borneo and FIC

_UK: fleet at SZ2 survival _
A perfect KGF scenario for the allies

UK: landing the Indian fighter on Bur or China
Bury is a nice option, but this would also mean that the fig can’t be used in UK1 combat (only to take out the free Japanese transport, which always should be done by the UK.

_UK: building IC on India _
You can probably do a KJF with only US naval pressure and then leaving UK and USSR to contain Germany. But a “pure” KJF IMO must involve Asian ICs. Preferably in India and Sinkiang – but not necessarily UK1. Perhaps it is doable to apply the pressure from South Africa or Australia?

_Japan: attacking Buryatia _
Attacking a stacked Bury would be a good Japanes move IMO.

Japan: loss of a capital ship (battleship/carrier) on J1  2 (7.4%)
Assuming the Japanese player knows how to defend against a US pacific aggression, I would consider it a requirement that Japan not has to good a first round. Whether it suffers air or a capital ship or minor ship losses of course depends on, the battles chosen and losses inflicted on the allies (China, Bury, SZ52, UK ships)

_Japan: loss of 1 or more fighters _
See above

_Japan: minor naval losses (cruiser, sub) _
See above

_Japan: defeat on China attack _
A key battle. A defeat or marginal victory would make a US round 1 Sinkiang IC viable. A strong Japanese victory (say 3 inf surviving) makes a KJF very difficult.

_Japan: not sinking the US fleet at SZ52 _
If by not sinking you mean losing a battle in sz52, this would be a huge asset for a KJF strategy – if it is by not attacking, well then US still has to beat the Japanese navy at some point. Not a requirement in my opinion.

_US: attacking SZ60 on US1 _
Depends…

_US: building IC on Sinkiang/China _
A viable option (in Sinkiang), but only relevant if Japan did not do to well in China.

_US: counterattack on SZ52 _
Another good option, depending on which units are there.

_US: full build up of the Pacific fleet _
Yes in order to pressure Japan, Allies need to threaten its navy and thereby slowing its march in the Asian mainland.

_US: retreating all units from Atlantic to Pac _
A possibility, but a sacrificial landing in Algeria is also an option in order to help secure Africa and cover the back of an India IC.

_US: landing on Algeria _
See above.

US: reinforcing the UK fleet with cruiser and fighter(s)
Which UK fleet?  If UK goes for a fleet build, which is not a bad idea to keep some German units away from the eastern front, then the US might as well support it. But if Germany made a classic “fortress of Europe” opening then UK can only put a fleet in sz8 if it spends all its 30 ipc on navy (AC+2dstr) and then we are probably not talking KJF anymore, but a balanced scenario with allies pressuring both Germany and Japan from the seaside only.