@Cow:
This isn’t a KGF game. It can be a KIF. Hell I did a KJF but we were playing without the national objectives.
KGF or KIF is almost the same: you’re going to the European Theater. I guess that what we (or at least I) mean by KGF is that the Allies (mainly the US) forgets about the Pacific (except for units already in the map) and focus almost solely on beating the European side of the Axis.
@Cow:
Hell I did a KJF but we were playing without the national objectives.
and how you did it? did Moscow fell to the Germans? British IC on India? on Australia?
Instead of getting upset that it has resorted to KGF, come up with a strategy to beat KGF. If a strategy is developed that will beat KGF 60-70% of the time, guess what, no more KGF.
To be honest - every game about WWII IS won in Russia - even the real one ;)
Why do KGF work? - Could it be because the crowd (us) is used to that strategy and knows exactly what to do, so you don’t even try another approach? - Could it be?
The pacific is a wide space and there are a multitude of things one can try.
US buys BmBs sends them to Russia to bomb Japan into submission (IC, fleet, army) and let Russia/UK conquer the mainland Posessions of Japan - UK could also use Australia as staging area to Island hop from the soth while the us comes from the East.
Or do an US fleet build to attack in the conventional manner.
To help the Russians vs. Germany UK and US must only invest a few fighters for defence.
KGF or KJF ? - I for my part would certainly do KGF even if the odds were more for Germany,
The problem here is: You can do a KGF and ignore Japan for a lengthy time, but if you do a KJF you can’t IGNORE Germany - Most IPC are gathered in Europe and surroundings, so leaving Germany alone quickly makes it to an industrial giant - probably taking out Russia in the process. So if you kill Japan first, you MUST invest into Europe/Russia.
(italy neither adds nor subtracts from this equation)
So KGF is IMHO not done because its the “best” strategy, but its the easiest.
To be honest - every game about WWII IS won in Russia - even the real one ;)
Why do KGF work? - Could it be because the crowd (us) is used to that strategy and knows exactly what to do, so you don’t even try another approach? - Could it be?
The pacific is a wide space and there are a multitude of things one can try.
US buys BmBs sends them to Russia to bomb Japan into submission (IC, fleet, army) and let Russia/UK conquer the mainland Posessions of Japan - UK could also use Australia as staging area to Island hop from the soth while the us comes from the East.
Or do an US fleet build to attack in the conventional manner.
To help the Russians vs. Germany UK and US must only invest a few fighters for defence.
KGF or KJF ? - I for my part would certainly do KGF even if the odds were more for Germany,
The problem here is: You can do a KGF and ignore Japan for a lengthy time, but if you do a KJF you can’t IGNORE Germany - Most IPC are gathered in Europe and surroundings, so leaving Germany alone quickly makes it to an industrial giant - probably taking out Russia in the process. So if you kill Japan first, you MUST invest into Europe/Russia.
(italy neither adds nor subtracts from this equation)
So KGF is IMHO not done because its the “best” strategy, but its the easiest.
I agree when we play to win we go for Germany when we play to try things out we go for Japan. (Not always but you get the idea.)
LT
You cannot ignore Japan now, no more. I have played my 1st face to face game this morning (1941), Japan did some poor choices (letting 3 inf, 1 chinese fig to live and let the Pearl Harbour BB survive) and still, round 3 Japan is earning 50 IPCs. Even with China alive, patetic dices for Germany in Egypt round 1, and UK fleet surviving, axis reaches to 110-115 IPCs, having almost equal income than allies (and I’m counting the 1-2 inf China gets). Imagine what can do a better (or more experienced in this version) player if Japan it’s ignored. Merry campaigns in America, Africa in italian hands forever, a monster JTDTM or a combo of all …
Instead of getting upset that it has resorted to KGF, come up with a strategy to beat KGF. If a strategy is developed that will beat KGF 60-70% of the time, guess what, no more KGF.
I cannot try this against my inexperienced opponents but would love to see if it could work against a player going KGIF……
1. Get Japan to 35 ipcs per round or more. Take India while moving most of your fleet to the Med to protect Italy.
2. Go into defensive mode. Do not plan to take much more territory because this will mean a larger investment in land units. Hold your ground, attack when its a gimme.
3. Start buying bombers. 2-3 per turn. Buy infantry with the rest of your ipcs and ship them to your fronts for defense.
4. Bomb the hell out of Caucus and Moscow with the multiple bombers you have.
5. sit back and watch Germany walk into russia
You cannot ignore Japan now, no more. I have played my 1st face to face game this morning (1941), Japan did some poor choices (letting 3 inf, 1 chinese fig to live and let the Pearl Harbour BB survive) and still, round 3 Japan is earning 50 IPCs. Even with China alive, patetic dices for Germany in Egypt round 1, and UK fleet surviving, axis reaches to 110-115 IPCs, having almost equal income than allies (and I’m counting the 1-2 inf China gets). Imagine what can do a better (or more experienced in this version) player if Japan it’s ignored. Merry campaigns in America, Africa in italian hands forever, a monster JTDTM or a combo of all …
I take it that was with National Objectives…
Do you think a 1941 game is more balanced WITHOUT the N.O. ?
Yes, but still not balanced. You can still kill China without NOs, the main flaw of setup.
Let’s KJF: forget China, it’s killed J1. Supposing India holds we go back to old Revised combined values. But India cannot hold much time without chineses, so let’s also kill India. Now, you could ignore both and make a only SAF IC + Pacific fleet strat. That worked well in Revised, in a 50/50 basis if both players were equal in experience. But now we have a slight stronger combo of ger+ita than the ancient solo Germany, so I guess we could get a 60/40 ratio, favoring axis. Not fatally flawed, but still unbalanced, and, worst, we lost any other KJF strat because you cannot hold Australia now against that swarm of strating jap trannies. That leads, I think, to a moderate unbalanced gameplay, favoring axis, with only one viable KJF strat. I’d prefer a couple more of viable KJF strats and the possibility of playing NOs
Let’s try KGF, JTDTM as counter: Japan can reach 55-60, Italy 10-15 and Germany 30 (95-100 to axis) vs 25 soviets, 25-30 UK and 38-40 USA (90-95 to allies). Allies can have a chance here, but still seems sligh advantage to axis in midgame. The main problem is not that, is that you have soviets facing a 55-60 Japan opposed to Revised 45-50 Japan. Soviets can hold less, and the Italy-Germany combo can resist equal. Japan can conquer Moscow early, giving they more time to rescue its western axis pals. I don’t like that approach. Maybe can work, but I guess again 40 % of allied victories, maybe a bit less
Let’s try KGF, but Japan attacks American mainland as counter: USA cannot reinforce Africa, and Italy can still reinforce with that big fleet. We have now a slight stronger Japan and Italy and a slight weaker USA and UK than in JTDTM. I think this is too very high risk for even trying KGF for these reasons:
I think the map is designed for allies needing defend all places (that’s very good), but 1941 don’t allow allies do that because of early fall of China, that acts as a chain reaction, being worst if playing with NOs. I reserve my opinion on 1942 until more games are played.
Let’s try KGF, JTDTM as counter: Japan can reach 55-60, Italy 10-15 and Germany 30 (95-100 to axis) vs 25 soviets, 25-30 UK and 38-40 USA (90-95 to allies).
This is not true. In a real KGF Italy is at 10 IPC flat, Germany at 25 and Soviets at 30. This means it’s 90-95 to the axis and 95-100 the allies.
Soviets should not be able of reaching 30, maybe 27-28 at best, counting Finland. But I’m pretty sure Germany can at least trade soviet territories and reach 29-30. If Italy manages escape to Indian ocean, they could take and hold saf, mad or some other African territories (if not, the italian income would be 9 :-D).
Still, let’s say both sides gain equal income. Soviets must still face a Japan who almost doubles them. And there is the more powerful Alaska path: even supposing a economic parity for JTDTM, Alaska path gives me economic superiority as axis, that’s the bigger danger trying KGF, not the JTDTM.
With Soviets taking both Finland and Norway (which is quite normal in an KGF) they are at +5. And no Germany won’t be able to trade Russian countries in a KGF game, they simply don’t have enough infantry to do so. Russia will lose some to Japan but with +5 plus maybe even trading Poland/Bulgaria they are pretty damn strong.
As for Japanese - Alaska route I know you think it’s a very strong strategy but to be honest I havent heard anyone on this forum about that except you, let alone somebody really taking and holding Western Canada, let alone Western USA. And considering the long route the Japanse have to go I doubt one can really bog down the USA 100% to the West Coast and not going KGF.
The dilemma seems to be this one:
Japan can’t be ignored because it gets too strong…
… but since it gets too strong, it’s impossible to deal with… :roll:
bottom line: seems Japan to get too strong, no matter what
Now… there would be a way of making this game balanced and forget about the KGF strategy: i_ndividual winners for real_. I mean: each country should need certain victory cities to be declared the winner. Allied nations can’t fight each other, but their objectives in the war are not the same.
It would be a different Game – and you should still make Japan weaker for 1941, or Japan will win every game.
But you won’t have a KGF anymore…
Random thoguht: Why is everyone always worried that A&A is, and always will be, about KGF?
I mean…I have never seen any other objective for the Axis to go for a KRF. Talking about repetitive…
Wouldn’t it be interesting if you would at least have a chance to go for UK?
By either pimping USSR a bit, so it’s not that much of a helpless prey, or by giving the Germans a bit bigger edge against UK, by pimping their initial fleet. (and give them the feared amount of U-boats they actually had).
Or V2 missiles from start. Or whatever.
Random thoguht: Why is everyone always worried that A&A is, and always will be, about KGF?
I mean…I have never seen any other objective for the Axis to go for a KRF. Talking about repetitive…Wouldn’t it be interesting if you would at least have a chance to go for UK?
yes, it would
I hate the fact that it’s always KRF for the Axis
but few people cares about that – maybe because there aren’t many Russians playing the game? :roll:
but I guess that KGF should be easier to fix than KRF
At least there should be a way to balance the game in a way where you have to fight in the entire world
If the Japanese have to fight the Americans, they can’t go after Moscow… real war was like that (although Japanese Army couldn’t have taken Moscow ever in real life).
Random thoguht: Why is everyone always worried that A&A is, and always will be, about KGF?
I mean…I have never seen any other objective for the Axis to go for a KRF. Talking about repetitive…Wouldn’t it be interesting if you would at least have a chance to go for UK?
Some Sea Lion potential would be nice, for sure. The Axis can go for the UK, but not for it’s capitol. Rather the Axis can focus on crippling the British economy - take India, Australia, and Africa ASAP. This is a different approach from bee lining it to Moscow, though Russia will be the first to fall either way (should the Axis prevail).
Random thoguht: Why is everyone always worried that A&A is, and always will be, about KGF?
I mean…I have never seen any other objective for the Axis to go for a KRF. Talking about repetitive…
With the advent of victory cities and the variable victory conditions they allow, you COULD have a game that was not ALL about taking Russia or going all out after Germany. Thing is, Revised fell a little short utilizing this new game concept of victory cities.
There was (and continues to be) plenty of discussions about what territories SHOULD be VC’s and what should not. All I can add is that through plenty of personal experience, one particular variant rules set A&ARe (a.k.a. Enhanced) DID allow games to be won without focusing on KRF or KGF tatics. In fact, often times, those were sub-optimal strategies in Enhanced games.
I imagine that there will eventually be some variant rules that enable this same sort of decreased reliance on the KRF / KGF strategies for AA50.
IBut I really think that their main strenght is the fleet they can use to control the mediterranean.
Italy is weak, but you’re right. The problem really is once you lose that fleet Italy is a lost cause.
I don’t think Italy will necessarily win Africa as well, the odds are in England’s favor.
As for Japanese - Alaska route I know you think it’s a very strong strategy but to be honest I havent heard anyone on this forum about that except you, let alone somebody really taking and holding Western Canada, let alone Western USA. And considering the long route the Japanse have to go I doubt one can really bog down the USA 100% to the West Coast and not going KGF.
I had taken and hold Wcan (for 1 round) in Revised two times with this strat (and trade Cusa and Ecan). You have more money and more starting trannies now as Japan, and the route to Alaska and Wcan is, in fact, shorter than to Moscow with the new map, so now should be easier go to America than in Revised. And yes, It can force USA to defend West Coast at least to 90%, so forget going KGF with USA if axis try this.
And Japan can still send guys to Asia. Collecting more than 60 IPCs aids a lot
I’m not totally convinced that its a complete KGF game. I think what we are seeing is people not yet maximizing Japan’s potential in a KGF situation. Japan can be making as much money as the US (or more) in short order if left alone. And that means that Russia is going to be losing territory and being SBR’ed into the Stone Age from the East. IMO, Germany and Italy can certainly afford to play a little more defensively against Britain/US than Russia can against Japan. And a successful Japan will be taking money from all three Allied players.
Personally I think things are set up to allow for Britain and USSR to fighting Germany and Italy while the US primarily tackles Japan. The end results of that type of play seem to be fairly historical (although the actual mechanics of Japan having anywhere NEAR the production capability of the US is insane, I believe it necessary for gameplay purposes). If the US is pressuring Japan, that can save the Brits some money in India/Australia and sometimes the Indies and Borneo. It also can save Russia from being hit in the back. Japan can either keep up with the US fleet production or she can take on Russia. Even with 40+ IPCs a turn she really cant do both. And its harder to hold onto those 40+ IPCs if the US keeps filtering raids into the South Pacific (or any Brit survivors threaten the islands).
Our first few games were definately KGF. Japan seemed so unbeatable in the Pacific that the US players just gave up and went after Germany. The Japanese players were not fast enough to translate that into relief for Germany/Italy and the Allies won. After that, our Japanese play started to improve. The next time the US abandoned the Pacific the Japanese gobbled up India, Australia, the islands giving the US bonus money, and were driving hardcore into Russia. They took Alaska and were threatening the Continental US as well. They still didnt move as quickly as they could and the idea of SBRing Russia was late. But it was scary indeed to see the Japanese making almost 60 IPCs a turn and cranking out tanks on the mainland and bombers to smash the econ. Suffice it to say, the next games we played, the US and Brits were back fighting for the Pacific! Since then we’ve learned a bit about US Pacific strategy as well and we’ve started to see more diverse battles at sea.
I think KGF is probably a viable strat. But I do not believe it is the only viable one or even the optimal one. And I think once people become better at utilizing Japan it will become less and less of an appealing strat than people seem to think. I believe that this will actually result in a more balanced approach towards global strategy than in any of the previous A&A editions.
My opponent tried a global strategy with USA last weekend. He probably put 90% of builds in the Pacific. I was able to hold him off as Japan(shocker). But what I did on J1 is send my closest CV and 2 fighters to the Med to protect Italian navy. It worked like a charm and the navy survived until the last round(6). By then it was too late I had Africa most of the game and I was attacking Caucus the last 3-4 rounds. Japan never even missed that Carrier.
Japan still took Asia, India, and held all of eastern Russia with USA going 90% into Pacific.
Italy is a seperate power. We have a USA controlled China. I wonder if it would have been a good idea to have Austrailia as a UK controlled miner power with an IC and some income with English convoy income(THINK AAP). Forgive my history knowledge but Austrailia was it’s own nation and India still a colony???
