Revisiting the Kill Japan First (KJF) Strategy

[Funcioneta]

The islands cost 13 ipcs (from japanese ones) plus 3 ipcs (from Australia and N Zel) plus 1 ipc (from Hawai). 16 ipcs is hardly too little, and Japan will get all of these in a KGF  :-P Japan can be at 25 ipcs if they ignore the islands …

[Lucifer]

@Funcioneta:

The islands cost 13 ipcs (from japanese ones) plus 3 ipcs (from Australia and N Zel) plus 1 ipc (from Hawai). 16 ipcs is hardly too little, and Japan will get all of these in a KGF  :-P Japan can be at 25 ipcs if they ignore the islands …

I have only seen this happen maybe 1 out of 20 games, Jap islands taken by US and allies still wins the game.

[trihero]

The islands cost 13 ipcs (from japanese ones) plus 3 ipcs (from Australia and N Zel) plus 1 ipc (from Hawai). 16 ipcs is hardly too little, and Japan will get all of these in a KGF  tongue Japan can be at 25 ipcs if they ignore the islands …

You can’t fight a 2 front war. Spending on navy to counter US naval purchases just means you lose Asia - in addition to the islands. If you get Asia you more than make up for those 13 IPCs.

[Funcioneta]

If you lose the islands, USA can put an IC at Borneo/East Indies or both and invade Asia or even Japan. Ignoring any nation is not a good idea. I’m surprised how people says ignoring Japan at Asia or USA at Pacific is the best strategy.

[Jennifer]

@Funcioneta:

If you lose the islands, USA can put an IC at Borneo/East Indies or both and invade Asia or even Japan. Ignoring any nation is not a good idea. I’m surprised how people says ignoring Japan at Asia or USA at Pacific is the best strategy.

Me too.

I actually like a Japan that ignores America.  My new strat for dealing with that is to make Russia chase after Japan to keep them out of Kazakh/Novosibirsk while England keeps Africa and keeps Karelia/Archangelsk open.

By the time Germany gets Caucasus, Japan should be pretty much out of it.

[JamesG]

@Cmdr:

As for TripleA, Kill America First works in TripleA, not a stellar program if you ask me.

By “works in TripleA” do you mean works against the Artificial Intelligence in TripleA?  Is that how you judge if some of your harebrained strategies “work” or not, by trying them against that AI?  The TripleA AI is known to be not very good, even the maker of it acknowledges that.  Its really just there as a placeholder until someone has the time and skill to create a good AI.  It should NEVER be used to test strategy.  Pretty much ANY strategy should work against it.

And you should really stop knocking the TripleA program in general just because you can’t seem to get it to work right.  It is a great program that hundreds of people have used to play thousands of games on the TripleA WarClub Ladder.  Plus I’m sure many, many more non Ladder games have been played using it.

In summary:
TripleA AI for playing the game solo - not great (or even good)
TripleA program itself, for playing other people - GREAT

[Jennifer]

Yea, TripleA is about as good as the original Hasbro CD-Rom!  Oh wait, the Hasbro AI was smarter!

[Funcioneta]

It’s not too difficult being better than Hasbro CD’s IA. I beaten the game as Japan in the Cold War modified scenario. 14 ipcs for starting production! :-P

[Jennifer]

@Funcioneta:

It’s not too difficult being better than Hasbro CD’s IA. I beaten the game as Japan in the Cold War modified scenario. 14 ipcs for starting production! :-P

I didn’t say it was difficult to beat the Hasbro CD Rom’s AI.  I said it was harder then the TripleA AI.

[JamesG]

Jennifer,

In one of your diatribes against Low Luck you said (paraphrasing) that strategies such as Kill America First and Kill UK First, and other bad strats, “work” in Low Luck but don’t work in ADS.  I’m curious if this statement was based on playing those Low Luck games against the TripleA AI?

[Jennifer]

No.  I don’t base anything on playing the TripleA AI.

I’ve played any number of really whacked out strategies against good players in LL and had them pan out for me because of the nature of LL.  12 Transports will ALWAYS get two hits in round 1 of LL.  So why build anything but transports, fighters, infantry and artillery?  And you and I and everyone else knows how easy it is for the allies to get up to 12 transports at any given stage of the game.

And yes, btw, Kill America First works beautifully in Low Luck.  I’ve yet to see it succeed in an ADS game.  In Low Luck, except when America is played like I play America, it works absolutely wonderfully!  (I play a paranoid America, ask anyone.  I routinely have 8 or more ground units in W. Canada, W. USA and E. Canada ready to beat the snot out of Japan if they land, and that’s without a single interruption in my troop train to Europe.)

[Pervavita]

i did get in ADS with Japan a take on the US before realy getting deep into Asia. it was a fluke but still it worked.
it was a fluke because i was moving around with a few trani’s taking Austrelia and NZ, by the end i had just a tank left, i saw WUS with just 2 Infantry and decided it was worth the try, brought the trani with tank up to strike distance well still making my push west into Asia. i made the move on the next round and by dumb luck got it, seeing my opertunity i changed strats and went full Japan on US. first turn i took WUS i moved all my tranis over fully loaded to land the next turn, of course the counter attack took WUS back but i was able to land a real landing force (that got pushed off again), followed by the landing force that hit the next turn and held WUS for me. this was in the older version where there was no central US. with central US i would have probably held the turn before.
my point is that in ADS the US can fall before moscow or UK. it’s just about taking a risk some times.

[Lucifer]

@Cmdr:

No.  I don’t base anything on playing the TripleA AI.

I’ve played any number of really whacked out strategies against good players in LL and had them pan out for me because of the nature of LL.  12 Transports will ALWAYS get two hits in round 1 of LL.  So why build anything but transports, fighters, infantry and artillery?  And you and I and everyone else knows how easy it is for the allies to get up to 12 transports at any given stage of the game.

And yes, btw, Kill America First works beautifully in Low Luck.  I’ve yet to see it succeed in an ADS game.  In Low Luck, except when America is played like I play America, it works absolutely wonderfully!  (I play a paranoid America, ask anyone.  I routinely have 8 or more ground units in W. Canada, W. USA and E. Canada ready to beat the snot out of Japan if they land, and that’s without a single interruption in my troop train to Europe.)

Some tactics and strats work both in LL and ADS. I didn’t say that absolutely all strats which works in LL also
must work in ADS.

Kill America First….
I don’t see much point in having any more discussions with you, after you claim that KAF works in LL.

[JamesG]

@Lucifer:

Some tactics and strats work both in LL and ADS. I didn’t say that absolutely all strats which works in LL also must work in ADS.

While I agree that there are some minor tactical differences between Low Luck and ADS (mainly involving strafing) I actually think any strategies that work well in Low Luck will work well in ADS, just not with the same reliability.  Hence I think Low Luck is great tool for testing strats, even if I don’t prefer playing real games that way.

I can summarize my opinion on Low Luck and ADS as follows:

Any GOOD strategy will succeed more often in Low Luck than ADS, because there is less chance of wacky bad dice causing the strat to fail.  But in both Low Luck and ADS a good strat should succeed more often than not, over the long term*, assuming opponents of equal skill.

Any BAD strategy will fail more often in Low Luck than ADS, because there is less chance of wacky good dice causing the strat to succeed.  But in both Low Luck and ADS a bad strat should fail more often than not, over the long term*, assuming opponents of equal skill.

• By “over the long term” I mean over the course of many games.  Though it should take fewer Low Luck games than ADS games to determine if a strat is good or bad.

Kill America First….
I don’t see much point in having any more discussions with you, after you claim that KAF works in LL.

Amen brother, amen.

[Jennifer]

@JamesG:

Kill America First….
I don’t see much point in having any more discussions with you, after you claim that KAF works in LL.

Amen brother, amen.

Good, then when I pull it on you next year in the leagues, you’ll never see it coming.

[newpaintbrush]

@JamesG:

@Lucifer:

Some tactics and strats work both in LL and ADS. I didn’t say that absolutely all strats which works in LL also must work in ADS.

While I agree that there are some minor tactical differences between Low Luck and ADS (mainly involving strafing) I actually think any strategies that work well in Low Luck will work well in ADS, just not with the same reliability.  Hence I think Low Luck is great tool for testing strats, even if I don’t prefer playing real games that way.

NO WAI.  Let me propose a simple game.  You take ten coins and flip them.  Every time you have more heads then tails, or more tails then heads, you remove the “extra” heads or tails.  (So if you flip the ten coins and get six heads and four tails, you remove two of the “heads” coins).

Now according to Low Luck, your game is going to last, well, forever.

See how long your game REALLY lasts.  Then ask yourself how well Low Luck would have predicted your game.  Yeah, see what I mean?

OMG Low Luck is NOT the way to play if you want to test a strategy, UNLESS you’re trying to test a LOW LUCK strategy!

I can summarize my opinion on Low Luck and ADS as follows:

Any GOOD strategy will succeed more often in Low Luck than ADS, because there is less chance of wacky bad dice causing the strat to fail.  But in both Low Luck and ADS a good strat should succeed more often than not, over the long term*, assuming opponents of equal skill.

No no!  Any GOOD LOW LUCK Strategy will succeed more often in Low Luck than ADS because you’re playing a LOW LUCK STRATEGY!  By the gods, you can’t equate the two!  Let me say it explicitly, if you make an incredibly GOOD LOW LUCK STRATEGY, that SAME strategy will get its ASS handed to it in an ADS game if the opponent is skilled!  (And vice versa; an incredibly good ADS strategy will get its ass reamed in a low luck game against a good low luck player!)  It’s apples and oranges, good low luck players are NOT necessarily good ADS players, and vice versa!

Any BAD strategy will fail more often in Low Luck than ADS, because there is less chance of wacky good dice causing the strat to succeed.  But in both Low Luck and ADS a bad strat should fail more often than not, over the long term*, assuming opponents of equal skill.

A BAD strategy will get its ass handed to it in Low Luck OR in ADS, unless that strategy depends on a single long-odds battle, which I must emphasize most games do not come down to!  Most games come down to a struggle over position and territory that culminate in the eventual collapse of the positionally or economically weaker side!  I’d say a bad TACTIC could succeed more often in ADS than Low Luck, but bad STRATEGIES almost definitionally fail (unless faced with an even worse strategy).

• By “over the long term” I mean over the course of many games.  Though it should take fewer Low Luck games than ADS games to determine if a strat is good or bad.

Kill America First….
I don’t see much point in having any more discussions with you, after you claim that KAF works in LL.

Amen brother, amen.

Silence, fool, or I shall unleash my Cat of Mass Destruction.  There you’ll be, thinking you’re about to crush Germany, when suddenly cats shall rain from the sky like missiles from the heart of hell.  We’re talking teeth the size of fighter planes, paws the size of entire countries, and a tail that is longer than the entire length of the Mediterranean.  With a fierce swipe of its paws, Russia’s mighty forces shall be wiped from the board, along with any incriminating catnip.

Teh JENFORCES are invincible . . . as you will come to realize in the end, poor fool.

[Jennifer]

I’m promoting newpaintbrush.  You’re now a Major in the Jenforces.  HUA!

[JamesG]

@newpaintbrush:

NO WAI.  Let me propose a simple game.  You take ten coins and flip them.  Every time you have more heads then tails, or more tails then heads, you remove the “extra” heads or tails.  (So if you flip the ten coins and get six heads and four tails, you remove two of the “heads” coins).

Now according to Low Luck, your game is going to last, well, forever.

See how long your game REALLY lasts.  Then ask yourself how well Low Luck would have predicted your game.  Yeah, see what I mean?

OMG Low Luck is NOT the way to play if you want to test a strategy, UNLESS you’re trying to test a LOW LUCK strategy!

I don’t find this a compelling argument at all.  Comparing A&A and your theoretical coin game really is apples to oranges.  The rules between the two are so completely different that noting how one reacts to LL as compared to other is basically worthless.

Let me say it explicitly, if you make an incredibly GOOD LOW LUCK STRATEGY, that SAME strategy will get its a** handed to it in an ADS game if the opponent is skilled!

I don’t know, I think KGF is a pretty great strategy in both LL and ADS.

good low luck players are NOT necessarily good ADS players, and vice versa!

Here I agree with you, completely.  A player can be a great long term planner and odds calculator but be sucky at adapting to unlikely events that occur.  Such a player would be good at LL but not good at ADS, except in those ADS games where the MAJOR battles do not skew far from average.  Likewise a player could be average at best at long term planning but be great at recognizing and taking advantage of sudden changes in board conditions when a big battle goes much worse than average for their opponent.  Such a player would be good at ADS but not so good at LL.

A BAD strategy will get its a** handed to it in Low Luck OR in ADS,

No, sometimes even a bad strategy will succeed in ADS because of crazy good dice on the part of player using the bad strategy (and/or crazy bad dice for his opponent).  This is MUCH less likely in LL since LL greatly minimizes the effects of crazy dice.  This is why I think LL is a good tool for quickly weeding out the good strategies from the bad.

[Jennifer]

@JamesG:

A BAD strategy will get its a** handed to it in Low Luck OR in ADS,

No, sometimes even a bad strategy will succeed in ADS because of crazy good dice on the part of player using the bad strategy (and/or crazy bad dice for his opponent).  This is MUCH less likely in LL since LL greatly minimizes the effects of crazy dice.  This is why I think LL is a good tool for quickly weeding out the good strategies from the bad.

Actually, I think you have it reversed.  Bad strategies are more likely to work in LL because of the fault tolerance.

Is it good strategy in ADS to send 1 infantry, 2 fighters after 3 defending infantry to “strafe”?  No.  Why?  Because in ADS there’s a chance the defender will get three hits.  In LL, he cannot possibly score more then 1 hit, period, and he’s guaranteed that one hit. So it’s a BAD strategy, but it works in LL.

Same for 1-2 punches.  You can work it out perfectly that you attack this long with the Germans then finish them off with the Japanese against a vastly superior force.  You can plan to do it in ADS, but odds are, if you are VASTLY out gunned, you will probably get p-owned by the defense in any given round throwing the entire calculation off for the rest of the battle and the next battle by extension.

[cyan]

@Cmdr:

Is it good strategy in ADS to send 1 infantry, 2 fighters after 3 defending infantry to “strafe”?  No.  Why?  Because in ADS there’s a chance the defender will get three hits.  In LL, he cannot possibly score more then 1 hit, period, and he’s guaranteed that one hit. So it’s a BAD strategy, but it works in LL.

that is still a bad strategy. it is just trading an inf for and inf in which the plans would probably be better spent. you would have to send atleast an extra artillery.