I thought the best strategy to counter KJF was to KRF with Germany, since the Allies are ignoring you.
1UK explosion > 1J counter
-
im magister counterpart in this game.
i call it go for broke opning.and i must say that it all my atacks whent good. but usal some will all of them not go well. It is a risky move that realy can slow japan down special if u combine it whith and atack on boreno.
another option for uk is, if there is only 2 tanks in anglo egypt then i atack egypt whith 1inf 1fighter and 1bomber, and atack boreno whith 2 inf
1 thing u shout have done was that u shout have put the tranny to sea zone 36 whith the bb and ac. If i got lucky in pearl take a figter as casulti, u hat figters in range ther cout land on the ac. Then u cout have retaken india. And just ignore that UK sub.
But the biggest problem is the sub in solo, if u have that u can go light on pearl whith 1 sub 1 dest 1 fighter and 1 bomber. If i lose that sub i sometimes purcase 2 ic for japan in round 1, Because u cant protect the trannys. It is to risky to let them die, if u lose them u lose the game.
i also have to say that this is my standart opning in a KGF, i have never gone KJF. But if i can counter pearl i will surly do so the navy dosent come and bite me in the ass. I have never seen a KJF that works. and dont come up whith starts, it only works if u can beat me whith it. :-D
sorry for my bad english
-
@Crazy:
:roll:
:mrgreen:
-
@Crazy:
:roll:
IMHO, Japan must try to eliminate as much Allied ships as possible on J1. If successful, it really doesn’t matter how decimated japans fleets are, if there are no Allied ships left in the Pacific. Transports can run around without fear and invade weakly defended territories that Japan can hold for half a dozen turns easily.
:roll:If Japan loses its ships killing the Allied ships in the Pacific, the US can just buy some more ships. Then it will be the US transports that run around without fear.
-
Yeah, Magister, I wasn’t looking at a board. Quite right, the UK can make some very inconvenient naval blocks for Japan. HOWEVER, I stand by what I wrote earlier.
- To crush Pearl Harbor in one round with some safety: btl des tra car 1bmb 2ftr. Succeeded without loss.
1. Jap transport to Hawaii means 2 less early units in Asia.
2. Japs did not kill 6 Russian infantry in Burytia.
3. Russians have option of 1 inf to Manchuria and retreat rest to Yakut.Net, Russians maintain strong economy in early game and keep their Asian infantry intact.
–-
What if you were unlucky and sustained 2-4 hits? It’s btl 2 ftr car (optional destr, trns, assume destr) vs US attack force of btl bmb 2 ftr 1 dstr 1 trns. However, the Japs have to lose fighters before they drop the carrier, and the US can retreat its battleship to Western US to be supplemented by a Pacific build.
With a bit of bad/good luck, the Japs will be wiped out and the US battleship will survive, leaving the Allies with the possibility of contesting the Pacific early.
So - that Jap attack on Pearl is a good attack IF the Japs don’t have any sort of bad luck. However, if the Japs DO have some bad luck at Pearl, that bad luck will be exacerbated when the US moves to exploit that by attacking an underdefended Jap fleet. That is why I prefer to do Pearl with fodder plus lots of air when I can. Japan can lose some fighters at Pearl, but the US cannot possibly break Japan’s navy.
-
[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 ?!
-
J Pearl: btl car bmb ftr = exact 2 hits, retreat to Wake, land another ftr
If you’re playing low luck you can count on this, but if you’re playing normally you might find the variance is high enough to make it a battle not worth pursuing, because both good and bad luck are against you. Hit too high and suddenly you’ve occupied that zone with a weak btl car, too low and the Pearl units will rip you.
Also Bury might be too hard to hit on J1 if the Russians put a fighter there.
-
I have never seen a KJF that works. and dont come up whith starts, it only works if u can beat me whith it. :-D
That’s what I’ve been saying since I first came here, cpl of months ago.
I’ve seen (very few games) US shipping units to SFE, but this is as far as the “KJF” can work.But remember this Enskive, in this forum ppl play with NA’s, and sometimes even tech.
We dont do that in the triplea lobby, so perhaps that type of games is radically different from what we’re used to. -
The typical KJF that folks use here is not a “Siberian Insertion” (landing US forces in SFE).
Island hoping, or a quick rush to SZ60 seem to be more common (with Island Hoping being the most common)
-
@ncscswitch:
The typical KJF that folks use here is not a “Siberian Insertion” (landing US forces in SFE).
Island hoping, or a quick rush to SZ60 seem to be more common (with Island Hoping being the most common)
Why is it that I almost never see this strat played in the triplea lobby??
I have never played by forum so I can’t tell where the best players are, as someone said, the best forum players
often uses KJF (island hopping), the best lobby players never uses this strat.
And I would think it’s strange if the level between the two “playgroups” are any different.
Anyone who has a good answer? -
[[/quote]
But remember this Enskive, in this forum ppl play with NA’s, and sometimes even tech.
We dont do that in the triplea lobby, so perhaps that type of games is radically different from what we’re used to.Point taken.
but i assume if plp dont say other, that it is the normal rules.
-
@ncscswitch:
The typical KJF that folks use here is not a “Siberian Insertion” (landing US forces in SFE).
Island hoping, or a quick rush to SZ60 seem to be more common (with Island Hoping being the most common)
Why is it that I almost never see this strat played in the triplea lobby??
I have never played by forum so I can’t tell where the best players are, as someone said, the best forum players
often uses KJF (island hopping), the best lobby players never uses this strat.
And I would think it’s strange if the level between the two “playgroups” are any different.
Anyone who has a good answer?There’s always a regional difference as to preferred strategies.
However, the level between the two playgroups are different. Shuttling US ground units to Soviet Far East has many problems; it is vulnerable to sea/air attack from Japan, must trek to Russia, and does nothing to counter a Japan-held India march into Africa/Caucasus.
-
The siberian insertian, I have only seen this strat in very few games.
I don’t have any higher regards to this strat than the island hopping US strat.As this forum have a lot of different players from all over the world, and also some posters play in a local
playgroup, and others (like me i.e.) are lobby players, it would suprise me if the best lobby players
are much better players than the best forum players, and vice versa.
But I’m just a poor noob so wat do I know…? -
There’s always a regional difference as to preferred strategies.
However, the level between the two playgroups are different.
Which playgrup do you believe has the highest level??
Another difference between the lobby and this forum, is that (my impression) in the forum, most players and/or (?) the
top players, play with reg dice, and sometimes even tech. NA’s and VC is another issue.
But the LL or reg dice is a significant difference in playing style.
The top lobby players uses LL. There a few good players who prefers reg dice, but the major majority of the
best 1vs1 lobby players only plays with LL setting.
Someone who can give me a good answer to the cause of the differences? -
A&A is really different with LL and ordinary dice.
A lot of things change. Tactics, logistics and Strategies have to take in account the LL, so you ave to adjust and adapt playing style.It is not a question of better or not. It is a question fo difference.
I usually play A&A, face2face. Usually we are 3 or 4, but I play also 2 and 5 players matches. We always use ordinary dice and I do not feel the necessity of LL.
-
I posted my thoughts on LL more than a year ago here (before Agent Smith removed all of his posts those discussions made more sense than they do reading them now)
I do not wish to re-hash it except to say that players who have solid winning records ADS are, in my opinion, better gamers than those who have winning records only in LL. A winning record ADS means that the gamer is better able to react and adjust as the game progresses.
-
But there’s just not much you can really do to react to a really bad battle, except hope the other player makes a mistake. That’s not entirely appealing, either.
-
It depends on how bad the battle went. And also on how much one is expecting from that battle.
If the future of one strategy is related to the outcome of a single battle, that is not fought with overwhelming forces… it is a planning problem not a dice problem, I suppose!IMHO to have success in A&A you must have a good plan, which objective is not strictly bound to the result of a single battle. But it is needed also to have a reserve plan.
A&A with LL loses a lot of the variety that random results give. In the games I play winner is/are those that react better to the problem emerging from the board and have several options to select basing on battle results.
It have always considered the “uncertainity” of dices an added difficult factor, a source of variety, and an emotional gamble element.
LL have less uncertainity, less variety and less gambling.
-
i wont go into a debat who is the better players LL ore dice, i realy dont care and it is a stupid debate, because i dont think that anyone can prove it.
LL is as much about luck as dice, it is just the outcome there is diffrent.
If 12 tanks atack 12 tanks, it is about 42% chance who wins and 16% of a draw.
When u play a dice game the outcome of the battle can be from, that the winner have 1 tank left to have 12 tank left. In LL u are sure that then winner dosent have more that 2 tanks left, there is still luck on who wins the battle, but how many units that are left, are the diffrent on LL ore dice. What plp like is up to them. And i dont think that one ore the other have better players. It is not that hard to ajust to.
another diffrent is that u can strafe better in LL, that is 1 of the thinks i like about it.
i dont think LL have less gambling. Because u have limitied the outcome so u dont lose all 12 tanks and your enamy loses 0, u can better take the gamble. The gamble is not as big as in dice, but il will be more willing to take it in LL. So for my point of wiew i gamble more when i play LL.
to decide who is a better player, LL players ore dice player. Is like to decide who woud win a fight, a shark ore a lion
-
i wont go into a debat who is the better players LL ore dice, i realy dont care and it is a stupid debate, because i dont think that anyone can prove it.
agree with you here…. this would be a good topic for another thread.
LL is as much about luck as dice, it is just the outcome there is diffrent.
ummm… I beg to differ. This is why it’s called Low Luck, the amount of luck is LOWER
If 12 tanks atack 12 tanks, it is about 42% chance who wins and 16% of a draw.
if you were to choose a multiple of 2, everyone dies, for example, 8 tanks on 8 tanks.
total death on both sides… where’s the luck there?… there is still luck on who wins the battle,…
with your contrived example, that is true.
I can create one in which ADS shows a 12% win chance for the defender,
but in LL, there is NO CHANCE the attacker can lose:6 tanks on 3 inf, 2 tanks.
Rd1: A:3 hits, D: 2 hits (4 tanks on 2 tanks)
Rd2: A:2 hits, D: 1 hit (3 tanks remain)another diffrent is that u can strafe better in LL, that is 1 of the thinks i like about it.
This is what ‘ruins’ low luck IMHO. This especially early favors the axis since they start with more units.
it definitely changes the dynamics of the game in eastern europe
i dont think LL have less gambling. Because u have limitied the outcome so u dont lose all 12 tanks and your enamy loses 0, u can better take the gamble.
perhaps we’re talking about a different LL system. If we are not, then I can not see how any of this statement can be true. Look at my prevous example. Where is there ANY gamble for the attacker there?
Attacker knows the exact outcome of that battle 3 tanks. Yes, there is limited outcome…ONE -
i wont go into a debat who is the better players LL ore dice, i realy dont care and it is a stupid debate, because i dont think that anyone can prove it.
LL is as much about luck as dice, it is just the outcome there is diffrent.
If 12 tanks atack 12 tanks, it is about 42% chance who wins and 16% of a draw.
When u play a dice game the outcome of the battle can be from, that the winner have 1 tank left to have 12 tank left. In LL u are sure that then winner dosent have more that 2 tanks left, there is still luck on who wins the battle, but how many units that are left, are the diffrent on LL ore dice. What plp like is up to them. And i dont think that one ore the other have better players. It is not that hard to ajust to.
another diffrent is that u can strafe better in LL, that is 1 of the thinks i like about it.
i dont think LL have less gambling. Because u have limitied the outcome so u dont lose all 12 tanks and your enamy loses 0, u can better take the gamble. The gamble is not as big as in dice, but il will be more willing to take it in LL. So for my point of wiew i gamble more when i play LL.
to decide who is a better player, LL players ore dice player. Is like to decide who woud win a fight, a shark ore a lion
I do not think is stupid to debate. Every exchange of opinions and ideas is useful, for me. Otherwise every discussion on the forum is useless. Instead discussion allows knowledge sharing. It is one of the principle of Internet.
Said that it is not a question of who is the better player, I was describing what I see as differences between the two systems.
There are differences. Ordinary luck is more challenging for planning and for adptively react to unexpected circumstances or negative battles outcome.
LL stresses more the optimal resource allocation between the possible battles, and also in defining the battles to be fought. Moreover, careful assessment of opponent available units allows for “more precisely” units allocation, to offense and to defense.
Suggested Topics
