@Cmdr:
If England is attempting to take Karelia, which is very daunting considering the mass of units there, then it will need it’s fighters for the attack. Remember, you only have ONE transport that can reach on UK 1.
No, odds are, England is sinking the German fleet at the loss of its fighters and landing in Algeria. Not attacking Karelia and SZ 5 even without a carrier purchase.
BTW, taking Karelia would also result in England losing their other battleship to German fighters too, btw.
Or you can buy a carrier, England does NOT attack SZ 5, but still lands in Algeria. Cost to England? -20 IPC in non-lost British Fighters. Cost to Germany, 16 IPC + loss of position on the board.
You have a tank + inf + BB support shot. That’s enough to swap Karelia back (95% of the time, Germany would have simply attacked Karelia with 2 inf + fighter G1)
Secondly, fighters cannot reach from WE to attack the UK fleet . They have no landing spot.
Germany should have attacked Karelia with
2 Infantry, Armor from E. Europe
Armor from Ukraine
Armor from Balkans
2 Infantry, 2 Armor from Germany
and
3 infantry from Norway
That would leave: 7 Infantry, 5 Armor in Karelia at the end of Germany 1.
Since Russia is almost always in Ukraine/W. Russia you can add 3 infantry from Belorussia to that stack for 10 infantry, 5 armor if you don’t want to liberate W. Russia (and I would personally for go making that atack.)
England is NOT swapping that. And if they DID make an attempt, Karelia would be a safe LZ allowing the German fighters to sink any ships the British have in SZ 4.
Squirecam, I know you really want this to work out for you, but there is no way that Russia is getting Norway. They can get Ukraine, on any given Sunday they might even get Balkans or E. Europe for a round, but they are not getting Norway and should not expect E. Europe or Balkans.
BTW, I assumed Ukraine fell and had 1 tank left and that W. Russia fell with 2 infantry, artillery, armor there. This would leave the russians iwth exactly 2 Infantry, Artillery to attack Karelia with. And Germany with fighters + 2 infantry in Balkans + armor in S. Europe to attack Ukraine with to liberate it.
I think those are all safe assumptions.
So England is looking at the following map on their turn.
(Assumes 1 Infantry bid into Libya, 3 IPC which almost everyone seems to agree is too low for the axis.)
(Assumes 8 Infantry purchase on Russia 1; 4 Infantry in Caucasus, 4 Infantry in Russia)
Basically, 7 or 10 infantry and 4-5 armor in Karelia (depending on if Ukraine was attacked or if Belorussia was attacked by Russia on round 1)
@Cmdr:
Germany should have attacked Karelia with
2 Infantry, Armor from E. Europe
Armor from Ukraine
Armor from Balkans
2 Infantry, 2 Armor from Germanyand
3 infantry from Norway
That would leave: 7 Infantry, 5 Armor in Karelia at the end of Germany 1.
Since Russia is almost always in Ukraine/W. Russia you can add 3 infantry from Belorussia to that stack for 10 infantry, 5 armor if you don’t want to liberate W. Russia (and I would personally for go making that atack.)
I could be wrong, and I don’t want to speak for squirecam (he does well enough on his own)
but I think you would forgo Ukraine if you intended to do a KJF. I probably would. Many russian units in WRU mean no German Karelia G1.
I could be wrong, and I don’t want to speak for squirecam (he does well enough on his own)
but I think you would forgo Ukraine if you intended to do a KJF. I probably would. Many russian units in WRU mean no German Karelia G1.
Correct.
Option B would be merely a strafe on UKR, but its usually not done.
Squire, sure you know me. My old avatar was CrazyStraw ;-)
Quite a long time ago a whole bunch of people changed their avatars to characters from Ender’s game. I jumped on that bandwagon - you must have missed that thread.
As for your comments on KJF, it is only in systems with odd victory conditions that KJF has a major following. KJF is only viable when the Philippines is worth $13 and India is worth more than central Europe.
I have some really important fantasy football to work on today, and I have a deep need to kayak in the flood waters, so I won’t be very active on this thread. But you have my 2 cents.
@Mazer:
Squire, sure you know me. My old avatar was CrazyStraw ;-)
Quite a long time ago a whole bunch of people changed their avatars to characters from Ender’s game. I jumped on that bandwagon - you must have missed that thread.
As for your comments on KJF, it is only in systems with odd victory conditions that KJF has a major following. KJF is only viable when the Philippines is worth $13 and India is worth more than central Europe.
I have some really important fantasy football to work on today, and I have a deep need to kayak in the flood waters, so I won’t be very active on this thread. But you have my 2 cents.
Well, you are entitled to your opinion, however wrong it is. :-)
KJF works in any context, VC system or not. It works for several reasons, but here’s one.
Russia (total) is worth 24 IPC. Japan (total) is 30. If you can crack Japan (and you can) before Russia falls, you gain much more IPC than Germany does. Note that Germany must take Moscow first (before the eastern USSR territories, and so in reality Germany does not get the full “24 IPC”. Contrast that with the allies, who are taking Japan’s 13 IPC in islands, and 9 IPC on land, reducing Japan to just Tokyo, which can only hold out so long.
And my opinion on that paper hasnt changed. Despite your several name changes (will it be Ocho Cinco next :-o) that paper did not fully discuss so many important things required to take India J3. You admitted that yourself in the past.
So to rely on a paper, which skips/ignores so many important points, as “proof” of something is quite misleading. Not to me, but to new players. Which is my main problem with it. You disuade folk from thinking for themselves by telling them the cant do something, when the paper is too conclusory and skips several important points. You are capable of better than that. Which is why that paper was a poor effort.
But dont take it personally. :-D
We’ve swayed off topic, so I will try to bring it back (G1 a/c buy)
A key to KJF is not to “tip” it off early (read R1). It is possible to do so, but then KJF becomes less optimal (note, not impossible, just less effective as it can be). If Germany sees a KJF set-up, they can do somethings to stop it, like build an A/C and tpts to keep UK honest… no cash to buy the IC in India.
Sidenote
I know alot of players like to decide KJF AFTER G1. This is certainly doable. Perhaps this is best as the allies are then not tipping their hand.
I however, like to be set-up to KJF IF Germany doesn’t react correctly to my opening moves. I don’t over commit, but I do show that it’s possible (when I feel like maybe running KJF). It’s always better in this game to make your opponent do what you want them to do, in other words, force them into moves they might not make on their own.
I have to agree with Squire on this one. KJF makes more financial sense then KGF because America is +38 a round of which all of it can go into the Pacific. Japan might get that high itself (though with Russia sending forces to contain it, as I’ve discovered it is not a fore gone conclusion they will) they have to divide their funds starting in round 2. (Takes one round for America to catch up.)
And axis has a point as well. The best time, for me, to decide KJF is on England’s turn. Even better is on Japan’s turn because now you know how badly they got beat up in China and SZ 52 (and they can get really bad bloody noses there!)
Good points Jen.
Personally I don’t like a KGF or KJF. I think the best Allied approach is to task Russia and England with Germany and the US with Japan. The Crazy Straw or Big Gulp strategies from older threads. Japan even if it is making more money than the US can not match the US in Naval builds due to having to aid Germany against Russia. All it can do if the US goes all Pacific is buy time.
As far as the thread topic I think a Baltic Carrier is a horrid Idea. I used this approach for a while and it just works against Germany. If I had to chose which fleet to sacrifice as Germany it would be the Baltic every time. The Med fleet can harass Russia, conquer Africa, and break out to hit isolated US territories that are never defended. The Baltic on the other hand can buy one round of movement for a limited number of troops to Karelia, waste troops trying to hold Norway, or if exteremly lucky grab England and the last for possibly one turn.
For a while the Baltic Carrier was the way to go.
That’s until players started to realize that with a little more aggressive build scenario for Russia, Russia could take out the Germans single handedly if Germany started blowing too much capitol on Africa and the Baltic Fleet.
I’ve even gone through Artillery + 4 Armor builds for Russia on R1. (Keep in mind I have +6 Infantry from Evenki, Novosibirsk and Kazakh to make up for no infantry built on round 1.)
Personally I don’t like a KGF or KJF. I think the best Allied approach is to task Russia and England with Germany and the US with Japan. The Crazy Straw or Big Gulp strategies from older threads. Japan even if it is making more money than the US can not match the US in Naval builds due to having to aid Germany against Russia. All it can do if the US goes all Pacific is buy time.
As far as the thread topic I think a Baltic Carrier is a horrid Idea. I used this approach for a while and it just works against Germany. If I had to chose which fleet to sacrifice as Germany it would be the Baltic every time. The Med fleet can harass Russia, conquer Africa, and break out to hit isolated US territories that are never defended. The Baltic on the other hand can buy one round of movement for a limited number of troops to Karelia, waste troops trying to hold Norway, or if exteremly lucky grab England and the last for possibly one turn.
Quite funny is that your favored allied “balanced” approach might be the BEST time for a G1 A/C.
Why?
Because Germany might be able to do well enough against just UK and Russia with their Baltic fleet around, keeping UK (alone, or with the little US initial Atlantic fleet help) on their toes. It’s the addition of the might of the US juggernaught in a KGF that dooms the carrier buy: Germany needs just about every inf she can muster to hold off a triple team, and those $16 on G1 just do not give the return that 5 inf would.
I don’t see that as by the time the US turn rolls around Germany has either bought the carrier or not.
And again personally I don’t see how a true KGF or KJF is where it is at as it leaves one of the Axis powers totally unchecked to make up the difference.
I am willing to back up my talk in league play are you?
I don’t see that as by the time the US turn rolls around Germany has either bought the carrier or not.
True, but I was putting the move in a long run perspective. Germany is buying the A/C turn 1, and it can turn out to be a decent (note I didn’t say game brekaing/winning) move if the US goes all out against Japan.
And again personally I don’t see how a true KGF or KJF is where it is at as it leaves one of the Axis powers totally unchecked to make up the difference.
Every player has what they consider to be the best way to play either side. I am not saying that a balanced approach is wrong or right.
I am willing to back up my talk in league play are you?
My last game online here has really soured my wanting to ever play here again. Plus, I am not in league.
What is a true KJF/CJF, and why is it that I almost never have seen this strat in reality?
Imo KJF/CJF is a strat in which most allie countries (London is to far from Tokyo) both produce and move units towards Jap from rnd 1.
US builds in WUS and moves towards Jap from LA.
Of course, KJF can be done, and also has be done well a few times, meaning some players actually did win games using KJF, but that doesn’t mean that KJF is as good as KGF.
I’m willing to playtest anyone who wants to use a “pure” KJF/CJF strat against me.
Russia cannot in my experience hold out against Germany alone even if germany buy an AC. They still need at least UK support.
Like Bigdog says, KGF and KJF are flawed since they leave one of the axis unchecked. It’s not hard to play turtle as germany and the AC G1 goes a long way to help doing just that. You won’t crack that nut before Japan reach moscow in a pure KGF.
You need a balanced approach
On topic, I’ve always been against the G1 AC buy (or any naval buy for that matter), but I think there are times and situations where it can work, but I generally prefer to focus on land buys (perhaps air) with Germany. Although, I’ve been kicking around the idea of all land buy on G1, then maybe an AC on G2, if UK didn’t hit the Baltic fleet. It worked in one game and the idea is, UK sees no reinforcements but buys a plane or two to sink on UK 2, then Ger drops the AC forcing the UK to re-evaluate things now on UK 2 and hopefully catching them and the US a bit off guard since they spent their rd 1 purchases and NCM expecting one scenerio and then they have to deal with another. You also have the opportunity to judge Rd 1 and Rus 2, is a dash for Moscow an option or did Russia roll down twice (no AC on G2) or did Russia roll up meaning you just want to buy time for Japan (maybe AC buy).
I’ve never regretted buying Inf/Rt/Arm, but I have bought navy before and sometimes I wish I just had the Inf.
As for the KJF questions, IMO it is definitely viable regardless of ruleset or victory conditions.
While it gets hard to define I’d probably define a “true” KJF/KGF as something that is 3 on 1. You use limited resources to “contain” the other side while the main focus is on taking out the other Capital or severlly crippling it.
You can choose to ignore one of the Axis powers b/c in theory you can cripple the other long before the one that is left alone can take Moscow.
In KGF, the three Allies kill the German ships and box German into WE, SE, Ger, and EE while you stack Kar and Wrus. Now Russia turns to defend against Japan and the UK/US can lend support to Mos if needed or just continue to squeeze Berlin.
In KJF, the UK keeps Germany honest in the Atlantic with a little US help, but the main thrust is an early all out assualt on Japan (maybe UK and US ICs) in Asia with a massive US presence in the Pac such that by mid game it is clear Japan will never be able to match the US buying power and they can then keep Japan in check as UK switches more and more to aid Russia or go after Germany.
It is easier said then done but those are the theories.
If I go after Japan I prefer a somewhat delayed KJF approach, which is more like a US only Pac strat, it may not be optimal in terms of really getting after Japan, but it allows me to see all the way up thru J1 before I commit to going after Japan or Germany.
Although I may start trying a more “convential” KJF approach in the future just to change things up a bit.
@Subotai:
What is a true KJF/CJF, and why is it that I almost never have seen this strat in reality?
Imo KJF/CJF is a strat in which most allie countries (London is to far from Tokyo) both produce and move units towards Jap from rnd 1.
US builds in WUS and moves towards Jap from LA.Of course, KJF can be done, and also has be done well a few times, meaning some players actually did win games using KJF, but that doesn’t mean that KJF is as good as KGF.
I’m willing to playtest anyone who wants to use a “pure” KJF/CJF strat against me.
The problem is, i don’t like YOUR definition of “pure” KJF.
My definition of pure KJF is all America builds going against Japan, the 6 infantry Russia has near Buryatia being used to slow japan and England’s forces in the Middle East/Asia and the Pacific/Indian Oceans going against Japan.
America’s starting units can go against Germany, any or all of Russian and British forces built or not on the Japanese front can go against Germany.
Thing is, by YOUR definition, you are handicapping the allies needlessly. You only need 40 IPC to contain a Germany with 50-60 IPC. But why in all rationale would anyone suggest sending all Russia builds against Japan when you have a much better stance defending against the Germans and buying America time?
If you want a realistic challenge, I’ll go KJF against you, provided you do not set up the Axis to thwart KJF. (I’ve seen some stupid moves people do if you are locked into KJF, like leave W. Europe, Norway, Africa, E. Europe etc undefended and send everything to the Russian border. A move guaranteed to cost you the game if the Allies are allowed to exploit it.)
Best maneuver I’ve seen is America setting up against Germany for 3 rounds then moving against Japan.
And no, a German carrier does not make any effect at all on my games. I don’t even like killing the SZ 5 fleet, so building a carrier against me is literally wasting 16 IPC since it gives you almost no offensive punch (and definitely not a valuable attack punch) and gives you nothing in defense since I’m not intending to attack anyway.
I will attack if I have incredibly over whelming odds in my favor and nothing else to do with them, or if I absolutely have to attack to defend my fleet. But both of those cases are ultra rare.
@Cmdr:
The problem is, i don’t like YOUR definition of “pure” KJF.
My definition of pure KJF is all America builds going against Japan, the 6 infantry Russia has near Buryatia being used to slow japan and England’s forces in the Middle East/Asia and the Pacific/Indian Oceans going against Japan.
America’s starting units can go against Germany, any or all of Russian and British forces built or not on the Japanese front can go against Germany.
Thing is, by YOUR definition, you are handicapping the allies needlessly. You only need 40 IPC to contain a Germany with 50-60 IPC. But why in all rationale would anyone suggest sending all Russia builds against Japan when you have a much better stance defending against the Germans and buying America time?
I’m confused. We were discussing earlier how to get USSR to that 40 IPC mark. 24 start + UKR(3) + Belo (2) + WR (2) is only 31. You need Norway + FIC or Manchuria for 37, all 3 for 40.
The only way to get 40 is for Russia to use the 6 inf to take manchuria and move some inf towards India to take FIC.
But I do happen to agree that a 40 IPC russia has no problem defending vs a 55 IPC Germany. In fact, thats the point of doing such a move, that Russia can hold out.
Not to mention that UK would still be shipping units into Europe.
I don’t see a 40 IPC Russia.
As I showed you before, England is not liberating Karelia, therefore, Russia is not taking Norway. That alone kills your 40 IPC Russia.
now you want to add Manchuria to the list? How? There’s only so much spit and polish you can use before you run out of units!
I will agree that Russia can get EITHER Belorussia and W. Russia OR W. Russia and Ukraine. But in both cases that’s not even 30 IPC, let alone 40 IPC.
Russia two you MIGHT get Belorussia, W. Russia and Ukraine for a total of 31 IPC (and that’s assuming Japan did not take Buryatia on Japan 1.) Again, not 40 IPC by any means.
Let’s just say this, it is easier for Germany to get 60 IPC a round than it is for Russia to get 40 IPC a round, in my opinion. And that’s after wasting 16 IPC on the carrier for SZ 5!
Cmdr, at least we agree on the Ger naval strat, it’s waste of money. G should only buy air/land units. Only if Jap manages to get the fleet to Italy, then maybe a Ger naval buy could be viable.
One thing is arguments for not buying navy with Ger, I also observe better players, and none of them buys any navy with Ger.
40 ipc Russia is very unlikely, allies probably won the game then :wink:
About Ger strats, the best (LL) player I’ve seen, leaves WE G2, and this is regardless of KJF/KGF.
And the Russian strat in KJF, I think KJF doesn’t work against decent players because Russia needs all units to defend against Ger.
US alone is not enough to CJF, even if the UK starting units is used against Jap.
Still not using TripleA, Jen :roll:
