Posts made by Magister

OK, back to KJF etc. the title topic ;-)

How does Japan best counter Jennifer’s midgame US switch to KJF ?

Suppose land fronts (Kar/EEU, Nov/Mos) are well stalemated with multi-country defender’s advantage - a theme I like to point out quite much these days. But both Axis still need to pour troops in, else they won’t be able to keep the sieges and Allies get back a bunch of IPC flowing.

Japanese fleet, even some escaped Italians are busy near Africa. The area cannot be left unescorted if Africa is to be held - because of bombers threat from Moscow. Else Allies get back a bunch of IPC…

US left with carrier, destroyer etc. that were in excess to defense in European seas. Germany had lost some planes so is still far from being able to threaten convoys with a few more planes.

Overall, a good use of Allied ‘slacks’ everywhere to punch through an Axis weakness.

I know, Japan can build enough submarines and come back with BB’s from Africa just in time to deter US advance to Solomons. Momentarily J out-earns US. But US already has 97 IPC of fleet in advance (btl car ftr des 4tra)…

[newpaintbrush] Yeah, Magister, I wasn’t looking at a board.
[Magister] 3.  Russians have option of 1 inf to Manchuria and retreat rest to Yakut.

Looking at a board and the stated initial plan, 1 Japanese inf was diverted to defend Manchuria. So Russians have only the option to attack with a strongish force. They used 3 inf and won without loss - BUT they could have lost all 3.

What you say - bomber defending at sea ? ;-)

I’d be glad to be able to forego Pearl if I know the US will leave peacefully the Pacific anyway ;-)

Yes, there is risk from fluctuations, and submarines are one of the most important sources. With normal luck I’ll be more circumspect.
But we were playing the Low Luck variant, and here a battleship is best because it takes the certain 1 hit with good chances for others intact.
There remained the risk from UK destroyer, still enough in Low Luck. With normal luck it’s worse because probability to hit at least once with 3 of 1/6 is substantially less than 3/6 (average is same, but compensates with chances of 2 and 3 hits, now useless).

Plan C variant:
J Pearl: btl car bmb ftr = exact 2 hits, retreat to Wake, land another ftr
sz60: des tra (attacks Bury) then build 3tra.
Bury: 3inf 1tnk 3ftr
sz45 Solomons: 2ftr to sink sub
China: 5inf 1art is enough ? Maybe. Without the arty it would have been impossible.

Then sz60 des 4tra has to defend against US car 2fig then optionally UK des. Not that bad ?!

I didn’t intend to ever buy an UK carrier (many more useful options: 2 transports, fighter+2inf etc).
But now that it is, it has a positive effect. It could allow 3 Allied fleets to survive around Germany (sz08 SW Britain, 06 Channel, 05 Baltic) to add the new US transports without disrupting the existing deeper UK+US flows (to Karelia or EEU) or to spare something to reply better to a Japanese raid to Brazil.

I’ve seen yet another interesting use of that “to-be-lost-anyway” German Baltic fleet. Now I thought NOT to open a new topic… as this one is descriptive at least as title.

1G: Baltic tra stays in Baltic and convoys troops to Karelia.
Des 2sub move to sz07 (NW France).
Med Btl tra go to Egypt to sink destroyer and convoy troops to battle.

Especially effective if G sub originally in sz08 has survived crushing the UK BB (33% chance) and 5 fighters landed in France. Bomber is in Libya, also in range.

UK fleet definitely cannot afford to attack, win and stay in sz07 even with UK air support, due to crushing counterattack. Can attack sz07 with air only BUT 1-2 subs may submerge. May attack sz07 with BB 2tra 2fig intending to retreat to sz08 after one round.
Some air may be diverted to attack Baltic tra or W.Med sub, but this leaves the whole sz07 to counterattack.

At the very least, this forces an UK carrier purchase, US fighter landing and unification in sz08 (so no Africa, Norway or other fancy actions).

Now this 1UK history was a best case, it has its own risks:

• sz59 Kwantung UK des vs J tra - sinks J tra 73%, sinks both 14%, sinks UK des 13%
• New Guinea UK 2inf vs J 1inf - 2:0 at end 22%, 1:0 56%, 0:1 22% … not that decisive
• sz45 Solomons UK sub vs J sub - no effect 44% (and J sub submerges), sinks J sub 22%, sinks UK sub 22%, sinks both 11%.

So only a combined 3.5% for the UK best case presented and not negligible for at least one of bad battles.

Now, if the Jap sub survives, it surely is a good defensive addition to the Pearl (or Wake) fleet or sz60 transports (though, 1sub 4tra not enough to hold vs US car 2ftr). With Low Luck a sub is unreliable as attacker, cannot be planned on, surely does not replace a fighter’s firepower to reach an “exact” result.

On the other hand, if UK were a bit luckier in Egypt or Germans had a little less troops, then UK bmb+ftr survived. Would Italian East Africa be a good landing spot ? Would German attack with bmb+ftr from Libya ?

… And still this doesn’t exhaust this interconnected regional analysis - that must include capabilities (of action), probabilities (of outcomes) and intentions (of opponent action)…
At tripleaorg.dev they are debating how to write a good AI for A&A. When it could handle a situation like this reasonably with all ramifications, then it will be a GOOD AI.

1R: Buryat 6inf Kazakh 2ftr …among others
At end of R1, then, Russia’s waving its arms and yelling “HEY ALLIES KJF!”

Not exactly - Russia participated to a quite successful KGF. But it could have become a full KJF if US fleet core were not crushed at Pearl.

But if you send Btl Des Car to Pearl, you risk losing the committed Jap navy units in US counterattack.  Far more economical to send Des plus mass air, and land fighters on 2 carriers at the Solomons.

I had Btl Des Car Tra 2Fig surviving at Pearl - more than safe ! Reasons to add the Tra:

1. not to have to lose the bomber if US had done 2 hits (either with sub or the extra 1/6 of Car Fig = 7/6) and
2. for now had no other safe place except to add to sz61 build (W Japan)

OK with counterattacking Buryat later. My Japs left behind 1inf in Manchuria for Ivan not to take it free, but have to mass so have something to kill later [anything suboptimal about that ?]. Or if supporting with fighters, having them exposed in Buryat too.

I assume you’re talking about the UK sub at Solomon.  That lone sub shouldn’t be a problem, particularly if you send the Jap battleship in the South Pacific to join 2 x Jap carriers at Solomons.  Sometimes that lone UK sub CAN be a problem if a UK bomber landed in China, but that didn’t happen.

That’s the catch with this “explosion” plan - scattered UK are blocking the passing spots, and the East Indian group (btl car) cannot reach Solomons sz45 over the New Guinean tra, neither Kwantung sz59 over the Indochina sz36 carrier. Maybe you haven’t pictured all the map and threats ? This SW group could either sit, move 1N to Indochina, 1E to N. Guinea, 1NE or 2NE to Carolinas - too far away to assist Pearl. And definitely didn’t want to leave a lone carrier in range of UK sub !

Another reason why I used battleships to attack instead of just sitting to escort: didn’t want to waste their free absorbed hit which is GREAT, beside their firepower. And I think I picked the best targets for that. At Pearl, the destroyer would have died just for nothing instead. And against the Indochina carrier - I wanted it down before the Persian fighter could land on it and form an effective stack, either running SW or threatening around.

I’m now thinking the Right Things were the Plan B:

• Buryat 3inf 1tnk 3ftr (so tra’ ends in sz60 E Japan)
• China 5inf 1art 1ftr. This is where the arty were handy !
• Indochina btl car - kill carrier.
• Pearl btl car des bmb, do exactly 2 hits and retreat west to sz51 Wake. If needed, lose bmb.
• Solomons 2ftr kill sub, land on Wake carrier
• sz60 E Japan build 3tra 2inf.

The US counterattack at Wake can be (if US lost sub, fig and survived Car): btl tra car 2ftr (including Californian ftr). Impracticable for US - I miscounted the US bomber that could hit Hawaii sea and land, but NOT Wake sea (Japanese island), go back and land.

Trouble with this version is - the 4tra in sz60 can be attacked by [EDIT] US Car 2Ftr and later by UK Des, optionally if situation is favorable. This is [EDIT: more than] plenty of risk, and this is what deterred me from this Plan B. Would the US dare to open the way?

…
Wonder what Japan could have done if R1 landed the 2fig in Buryat too ?
RUS 6inf 2ftr may be defeated by J 3inf 1tnk (Btl) 5ftr 1bmb, but with good chance to lose 1-3 fighters. So it leaves only 1ftr for China (plus the arty). I think Russia would not want such a trade-off, losing their little swap ability in Eurasia.

…
Wonder what if UK retained their bomber somewhere near the coast ? Then the offensive threat of little scattered UK ships increase dramatically, forcing their sinking or 1-2 big defensive J taskforces (btl car 2tra). BUT that was not possible after Egypt - using 5 moves to reach there, then anywhere landing in range of German bmb+ftr. So with this Egypt plan, it was right to sacrifice the bomber to keep the fighter back to Persia (and so keep the UK carrier as a potential value).

I’ve done plenty of true mistakes later in this game (not like these debatable options), and lost it. Mainly, after the German fleet was trapped and killed in the Med, Germany was heavily cornered by Russian-led Allies (and threatened from south by US), and Japan with not enough deep force to press Russia.

Wonder if this influence sphere separation doesn’t work better than classic KGF UK+US in Baltic ?
UK only troops to Baltic/ Archangel > help Russia,
US to Africa > help Russia, only later, and keep a huge threat on SEU, WEU, Balkans etc. (up to 6-8 transports)

I liked Jap arty in French Indochina enough to test it repeatedly. Useful, but not as much as Libya. See “1UK explosion > 1J counter” topic.

Someone mentioned 2inf in Ukraine. I’ve even seen 3inf - totally deterrent, more than counterbalancing a weak Egypt. Forbidden in the TripleA Ladder to add more than 1 unit per area. Can anyone say in which tournament version is this allowed ?

I’ve seen a few topics on more-or-less audacious UK plans to put Japan in difficulty, don’t remember how many and where exactly on this inform forum. And I have two new twists so I’d better start a new topic ;-)

I had experimented with a Jap bid of arty in French Indochina to replace the support of a fighter, and so giving them more flexibility in such exploding-UK situations. However, there’s one where even that wasn’t enough…

Low Luck game.
Bid 9 IPC: G Libya tnk, J FIC arty
1R: Buryat 6inf Kazakh 2ftr …among others
1G: Egypt landing, 3tnk 1inf survive … among others

1UK:
Egypt counterattack with 3inf 1bmb 1ftr. Wipes Germans while losing 3inf 1bmb. Fighter retreats to India.
New Guinea counterattack with 2inf. Wipes J 1inf without loss.
Solomons 1sub attacks, wipes J sub without loss.

Situation at end of 1UK:
-des sz59 off Kwantung
-car sz36 off Indochina (The new twist - now J btl from sz37 East Indies cannot reach sz59)
-tra sz34 off Egypt/Persia
-tra sz47 off New Guinea
-sub sz45 off Solomons
-Persia 2inf 1ftr AA India empty
(US in sz52 off Hawaii: sub car ftr)

1J Now what ?

• To crush Pearl Harbor in one round for little loss: btl des car 1bmb 2ftr = 18 punch, exactly 3 hits
  Transport may add extra safety (else if US sub hits, J needs to lose the bomber)
• To crush Buryat 6inf reliably one needs at least 3inf 1tnk 3ftr. So the transport must end in sz60, so it (or whole 4tra fleet with production) must be protected against UK sub+des.
• To sink sz45 sub certainly: 2ftr. OR
• To sink sz59 des certainly: 2ftr with 50% chance of 1ftr loss.
• To sink sz47 tra reasonably: 1ftr. Useful to limit further havoc e.g. Borneo
• To sink sz37 car reasonably: btl car (Or else it may escape, or allow UK counterattack using India ftr)
• To get free India: 1inf. Or not now ??
• To protect Manchuria minimally: 1inf.
• To conquer China: 5inf 1art. Fighters certainly help.

Already 7ftr 1bmb strictly necessary, more are welcome. CANCELED - back to the planning table…

• To sink 2 units in Pearl then retreat (W to sz51 ?):  btl des car 1bmb = 12 punch = exactly 2 hits.
  Trouble is, US can choose to survive either car or ftr, both increasing counterattack options, so more than btl des car 2ftr needed to defend.

I concluded sz60 (E of Japan) is a dead zone for transports-only now. If I clear enough threats around, not enough fighters left to make it useful (supporting 1J Buryat counter).
If not cleaning Buryat, there is the threat of US bmb attacking sz60 landing to Buryat too. Even Manchuria is a dead zone since RU 6inf 2ftr may attack. 2inf 1tnk 2ftr not defensive enough; adding more inf weakens China attack.

So I decided for lesser ambitious actions:

• To crush Pearl Harbor in one round with some safety: btl des tra car 1bmb 2ftr. Succeeded without loss.

• To sink sz45 sub certainly: 2ftr

• To sink sz37 car reasonably: btl car. Succeeded without loss.

• To sink sz47 tra reasonably: 1ftr. Succeeded without loss.

• To conquer China: 5inf 1art 1ftr. Survived 3inf 1art. ftr retreated to sz37 car.

• To get free India: 1inf

• To protect Manchuria minimally: 1inf.

• Build: 2inf 3tra (sz61 - W of Japan). A bit off-position for further offensive actions. Still can crush the 6inf in Manchuria.
  The empty tra in Pearl is also off-position but may be still brought back to transport Jap>Bur, or take the Solomon inf (BB+ftr supported) to Australia and NZ.

• Enemy left: des sz59 to be dealt with later. tra sz34 to be sunk by German planes from Libya. Not dangerous such dispersed, still some risk to leave 3tra attackable by expendable destroyer.

…
2RUS: 3inf conquered Manchuria 1inf without loss, [easy to counter with China force+air]. Other RU 3inf retreated to Yakut.
1tnk (1ftr) liberated India. No Jap force in range except fighters :=( so better just defend Indochina and attack later.

I’m sure there is much to discuss in various trade-offs here. Any obviously better options ?

I’ve tested a bit with a Japanese arty in French Indochina. It does the work of a fighter in the battle for China, but often it’s not decisive later. And even then, there may be 1J situations even more overwhelming.
For the remaining 5 IPC: tank in Libya, or even inf (and save 2 for Japan to build 4 transports)

Is this memorable game archived somewhere, preferably in TripleA ?

So:
D-2 Japan has just taken New Zealand with some half of fleet (1BB,1CV,2ftr,1tra,1-2inf). US fleet and air are in Europe, and just needed for convoy escorts.
Is this the right time for US to take preemptive measures ? what exactly ?

D-1 Japan is with said fleet off Argentina. Is this the right time… ? With what ?

D-Day: Japan has already taken Brazil. What now US ? Or is it too late ? Accept the -3/+3 IPC to the end ?
(Assume Allied victory in Europe is not imminent - still serious build-up to do)

This looks like ‘naval guerilla’ anyway, so if US actions are too threatening, Japan may withdraw before losing anything except time of using not-too-heavily-used-anyway ships.
US expends real IPC to counteract that may be useless elsewhere (ships), or of less utility (say fighters instead of transports+more troops to Europe)

I also agree that an US factory in Norway is much more effective than 2 transports, and more like 4 ! (3 tanks vs 2inf 2tanks)
But it’s not always possible, if Germans have a counteroffensive force ready in Karelia, strong enough to wipe the US if they come alone. But two Allied waves are much more solid defensively: not only the British troops, but also the US planes that may arrive on the airfields captured by the British.

UK 4inf, 4tnk US 4inf, 3tnk, 4fig, 1bmb, 1AA

OR: it’s possible Norway was swapped by light forces between US and Germany; then one time, Germans fail to recapture it (say 1inf,1art,1fig vs 2inf, quite possible) and the flag remains US. THEN would be the time for UK+US to come in force, with all UK planes too.

In other words, do you think the A&A.org server is the only bottleneck (factor limiting performance) - and not my link here ? Typically I have flows of 5-50 KB/sec and 50-200 ms reaction time.
Now my Ping www.axisandallies.org times 164 ms. Don’t know how much is from my link and again, how much from overloaded server.

Maybe both are involved, say the server sends all components in X seconds, they arrive here in Y more and I don’t enjoy the X+Y.

So is something that may be done both to ease your server’s load and final performance to slow accessers like me ? Maybe having an option to simplify some of the graphics, scripts etc. and everyone will benefit in going their main interest better.

And what if I don’t always enjoy multitasking ? ;-) Some Youtube music videos are nice, but that’s more like 3/4 of time loading and 1/4 playing…

Not that way Bean… I’m thinking of a German mass in Karelia that grows strong enough with the Allied threat, so that Allied landings are deterred on each turn: 1, 2, … so there never can be a mass in Norway.

But true, there remains the 3-power Archangel and Russian threat from Caucasus to Ukraine.
But if Russia manages to hold Ukraine solidly then this position unravels: the Germans in transit to Karelia may be not enough to hold EEU; Balkans MUST be swapped (else Russian tanks may reach Italy) etc.

What if Germany supports the fortification of Baltic with a mass in Karelia strong enough to counterattack any UK+US Allied landing in Norway ?

Would then Allies want to knock the German fleet ?
or just ship to Archangel (with some Russians added to survive all 3 powers together).

OK - if Germany has built say 2 carriers until turn 4, who is to make the build effort to wipe them: UK or US, or both or none ?
And with what: naval-specific (subs) or general-purpose (fighters) ? A few subs may be better, at least as “fodder” for minimum expected losses -counting after Germans withdraw fighters.

Am I the only one where these forum pages load really slowly ?

True, I’m on a slow connection (tiny share of neighborhood network) and other forums are slow too, but this is the slowest ! What about a poor modem user, like I used to be not long ago ?

Would the limiting problem be processing at your server, or too much data to transmit over the Net here, or too complex data (many small files attached, needing one to know the next) ? There seem also a bit too many cookies and background-processing things.

(Not only on your page, but many other modern pages suffer from same problems to me. What happened to old reliability and KISS ?)

I’d also propose increasing the number of posts (or topics in directory) on one page from 15 to 25-30.

True, you have to respect the threat of airpower and just stay out of range if it’s too much - usually early in the game.

To survive, a fleet needs both fodder and firepower.
For navies, the first “fodder” that adds stability to the defence is the free repairable hit of battleships ! Then transports or subs (depending whether attacker also can add surface ships: against air alone subs can be lost first; against air+navy subs are better than transports).
As said before, the best defensive firepower is from fighters (with the required number of carriers to land on), plus any existing battleships and destroyers (usually not worth building new, but surely using the existing ones!). Also, fighters of other powers can land on carriers (ex. UK carrier built round 1 + US fighters).

Joining different allies gives a great defender’s advantage (and defender’s only; each ally may be too weak to counterattack the German navy on its own, and it’s best to increase only one of them to prepare for the kill).

Typical survival scenarios:
NW of Africa before German round 2:
UK battleship, 2 transports, US destroyer, 2 trans, USSR sub
Holds reasonably against 4 fighters, 1 bomber. OK, may take losses but cheaper than German planes.
May deter even 5 fighters, 1 bomber if Germany doesn’t like air losses.

or

SW of Britain before German round 2 (UK build 2 transports)
UK battleship, 4 transports, US destroyer, 2 trans, USSR sub
Holds reasonably against 5 fighters, 1 bomber.

@Bean:

On Russia 1, they struck W. Russia with 9 inf 1 art 1 arm, and Ukraine with 3 inf 1 art 3 arm 2 fig.

They wind up with 5 inf 1 art 1 arm in W. Russia, and, unfortunately for you, 1 art 3 arm in Ukraine. To complicate things, they move both of their AA guns - one to W. Russia, and one to Ukraine. Their build was 4 inf 3 art, so now they have 5 inf 1 art in Caucasus and 5 inf 2 art in Moscow at the end of the turn. Both Karelia and Archangel are abandoned.

Your bid was 1 inf 1 art in Libya.

Initial scenario not evil enough ;-)
If Russia built 4inf 3art they will place 3art 1inf in Caucasus and 3 inf in Moscow.
So now they have 3inf 3art in CAU, greatly increasing counterattack threat to UKR !

In that case, I wonder if I’d do instead an one-round-raid to WRU then mass in a safe® position in Karelia or BEL.

Scenario: it’s around turn 6. Japan had just taken New Zealand having there 1tra+1inf or 2, 1car+2ftr, 1BB.
US has started to heavily KGF with a 5+5 transport fleet, has main fleet in Baltic, only 5 transports in SZ08 (SW of Britain) - enough to deter a lone German bomber - and say 3 fighters in Karelia.

Is this early warning of Japan in NZ strong enough for US to switch to some preventive anti-Japan building ? What would that best be ?

• Extra fighters built in EEU - reducing inf+arty flows ?
• Taking (some) fleet out of Baltic ? But that would mean dividing the (ships-vs-German-air) defense in 3. The Channel area is targetable by German fighters in addition to the bomber. So that may mean needing to take fighters out of Karelia to land on US or UK carrier. What if these fighters were NOW critical to hold the forward European presence ?
• Specific anti-ship units (offensive: sub, defensive and projection: carrier)

The “opportunity cost” problem arises because Japan can’t do very much with the 2car,2BB,1des in an anti-Russia effort not opposed by US KJF. So they may use them “somewhere” essentially for free. Brazil is one possibility, Alaskan raid or Africa others…