KJF Strategy Feasibility?

[cymerdown]

My friend and I were doing some brainstorming this weekend over how a KJF strategy would work in this version of the game (using NOs and LL).  Here is what we came up with.  Let me know if you think either of us missed anything major.

R1. Depends heavily on G1, but if G is going for Karelia like they should, R can try to aggressively defend/retake it until the G1 builds start to arrive, at which point it’s a lost cause and they will have to retreat to the Archangel/Moscow/Caucuses line.  Send about 2 INF towards India for the defense.
J1. Standard 31/10 IPC J1 turn, build 2 ARM, 1 TRN.
UK1. UK throws the starting Australia DD into the New Guinea SZ to decrease threat of invasion by J on Australia on J2.  If the G Baltic transport is by itself, UK hits it with the bomber and send the 2 FIG to WCAN, otherwise the FIG and BMB hit the Baltic fleet together.  What remains of the Atlantic fleet (probably just a DD and TRN) starts heading to the Pacific.  Evacuate T-J and buff up India, sending along the Egypt FIG as well if it lived.  UK1 build is 2 IC(!), one for India and one for Australia, save the other 13 IPC.
US1. US goes surface fleet build in the Pacific (maybe BB, CR, DD looks good), sends 2 FIG to Australia, and sends the Atlantic fleet through Panama.  2 BMB stand on WUS to defend the nearby SZ.

J2. With the standard J1 turn we use, J is not really in position to take Australia, India, or Hawaii on J2 given the current map situation.  After calcing odds, anything near WUS is deadzone due to the somewhat scattered nature of the Japanese fleet and the US fleet + bombers nearby.  The best move we see is moving 2 CV into the SZ near FIC and starting a 4-6 land units/turn shuck from Japan.  Since it seems that any threats that Japan can raise against Australia can be defended against by sending additional US FIG, the biggest goal we see for J is to try to pressure Asia and India for as long as possible while the Allies are catching up in fleet size.  J2 build is something like 3 ART, BB, DD, or possibly 3 ARM, BB, SS, or some other similar combination of ships/land units.
UK+US2. UK is going to build 3 ARM in India and start a Pacific fleet this turn.  If the 2 UK FIG are on WCAN, they can build a CV and land the FIG on it this turn.  US should now feel safe in moving its fleet and 2 BMB to Solomon, so long as their new ship builds will be safe from J’s FIGs.  The goal is to move the combined Allied fleet to Caroline on T3, thus forcing J to end the shuck to FIC and combine its fleet in SZ62 on J4, or attack with inferior odds.  Both outcomes are good for the Allies, as the former allows them to start taking southern Asia and the southern Pacific islands starting on T4.  It seems that Japan can maintain a defensive fleet in the Sea of Japan (up to 5 CVs in the water along with DDs to stop subs is a ton of defense) until around turn 6 before the Allies have enough punch to take them out.  This is about the same time that G and I have began to put some serious hurt on R and Africa.

[Lucifer]

I had, within some variation, pretty standard J1 moves, but after playing a few games I think there’s some details that’s been improved even further. Japan can very well take India J2, and at the same time do all other standard moves J1. Japan would like to take Philly J1 using NOs, but thats the only detail left which might not bring Japan to a flying start. With NOs off Japan usually take Philly J2, with NOs on, well……

Australia can be strengthened by US enough so that Japan can’t take it on J2.

The problem with KJF is that UK+Russia may not be enough against Germany+Italy, if axis gets Africa allies will probably be in big trouble.

In AAR KJF didn’t work against experienced players, by the premise that both players are experienced. In the beginning i thought this was also valid in AA50, but Japan can be pressured more because there is so much different from AAR, like unit costs etc. The real question is, will KJF be easier to win the game than standard KGF?

I would like to play against a KJF test game, using NOs, no tech and LL. I’ll be axis  :evil:
Not because I’m certain to win, I’m always uncertain about the outcome, but because a KJF test could be more fun, and also maybe not so competitive as a standard game. A loss would be easier to handle emotionally…    :-)

[Funcioneta]

Well, first, LL and NOs but no tech is a very rare ruleset (or at least one I’m not very used). LL alters the game totally, maybe even more than playing without tech. LL, in 1st place, let Germany try that karelian gambit without so much risk as in normal games, but it goes more far. Trades and such are changed dramatically, and also strafing.

Anyway, in any case, assuming 1941, India IC is not possible. Not with 5 starting trannies, because, it will lead to a secure lose of the IC in round 3 as much (even more secure because we are talking about LL. In the long run, also Australia is doomed and maybe I’d attack 1st australian IC and then India IC. Soviets are the only hope for India, because there are no more chinese aid in north as in Revised (Japan should kill China J1, and it’s even easier with LL (you only have to attack Yunnan with 3 inf, 1 fig to take the territory), but soviets will be too busy defending from that german IC in Karelia to send something valuable to India

But the thing I see worst with this strat is that leaves too freedom to western axis. Without Atlantic fleet, Germany can buy fleet and make a try against England (1 AC, 1 trannie is enough to divert ressources of any Australian IC that could survive). Soviets will be toasted in no time and also UK’s income (losing Africa). A interesting move for Axis would be moving the italian fleet to Pacific, but italian boats can instead try Sea Lion, Brazil or any other sneaky strat they imagine

AA50 is global war. Atlantic boats must be used in Atlantic and Pacific boats must be used in Pacific. You cannot ignore a enemy power, even some as crappy as China (a error more common than I thougtht), but ignoring two enemy powers (Germany and Italy) is a very bad idea

I’d be very glad if Pacific ICs were viable for UK in 1941, but sadly it’s impossible. Try those in Revised or 1942 and you could have more luck

[Funcioneta]

@Subotai:

In AAR KJF didn’t work against experienced players, by the premise that both players are experienced. In the beginning i thought this was also valid in AA50, but Japan can be pressured more because there is so much different from AAR, like unit costs etc. The real question is, will KJF be easier to win the game than standard KGF?

I have a different experience, KJF works well in Revised, even with both players experienced. Also, I don’t think KJF is easier in AA50, it’s more difficult because Japan has more income and because western axis has more income. Also, you have longer distances in Pacific and no hope of aid from India, soviets or China in long run

@Subotai:

I would like to play against a KJF test game, using NOs, no tech and LL. I’ll be axis  :evil:

A LL game is not valid for testing normal games because it changes game dynamic so much. Also with tech (I’m a bit amazed of how much can aid soviets playing without tech in first rounds in my only no-tech game until date)

I think each change you do to the ruleset alters the game too much, being that change tech, NOs or LL. Testing with LL only works for testing LL games (not normal ones) and the same goes for no-tech

[cymerdown]

@Funcioneta:

Well, first, LL and NOs but no tech is a very rare ruleset (or at least one I’m not very used). LL alters the game totally, maybe even more than playing without tech. LL, in 1st place, let Germany try that karelian gambit without so much risk as in normal games, but it goes more far. Trades and such are changed dramatically, and also strafing.

True that it’s a much different ruleset than HL, with tech, and whatnot.  I don’t think it’s super-rare though.

@Funcioneta:

Anyway, in any case, assuming 1941, India IC is not possible. Not with 5 starting trannies, because, it will lead to a secure lose of the IC in round 3 as much (even more secure because we are talking about LL. In the long run, also Australia is doomed and maybe I’d attack 1st australian IC and then India IC. Soviets are the only hope for India, because there are no more chinese aid in north as in Revised (Japan should kill China J1, and it’s even easier with LL (you only have to attack Yunnan with 3 inf, 1 fig to take the territory), but soviets will be too busy defending from that german IC in Karelia to send something valuable to India

I don’t really see that both ICs are a definite loss, as long as the Allies are aggressive enough about advancing.  Assuming Japan did something standard on turn 1 (after all, they didn’t know that a KJF would be planned beforehand, so they would probably not distribute their resources in such a way as to slow down their IPC growth but discourage a KJF because they would be behind in a KGF game).  US sending fighters and then advancing their fleet towards the south Pacific should be enough to protect Australia on J2 from everything I can see on the board.  In terms of India, if Russia sends 2 INF, and then the 1 INF from Burma, the 2 INF from T-J, and then the FGT from Egypt if it survives, and we are talking a total of 3 + 1 + 2 + 2 = 8 INF, 1 ART, 3 ARM, 1 FGT standing on India on the start of J3.  Some of those ARM can be FGT if it’s completely necessary.  If that’s even not enough, R can send another INF or 2 on R1 to hold down India - R will fall to G eventually, but they are just trying to survive long enough for the Allies to incapacitate J.  I don’t see the necessary Japanese resources to take that down without sacrificing something important, like FGT to defend their fleet with, or protection of SZ62 transports.

@Funcioneta:

But the thing I see worst with this strat is that leaves too freedom to western axis. Without Atlantic fleet, Germany can buy fleet and make a try against England (1 AC, 1 trannie is enough to divert ressources of any Australian IC that could survive). Soviets will be toasted in no time and also UK’s income (losing Africa). A interesting move for Axis would be moving the italian fleet to Pacific, but italian boats can instead try Sea Lion, Brazil or any other sneaky strat they imagine

UK will have to be ready for a Sealion at any time, which is a bit scary, I’ll admit, but not impossible to defend against if they crank INF on first sign of aggression.  In any case, US will be the big power in the Pacific, UK is just there to lend to the defense during the first few turns until US is powerful enough by itself.  UK will lose Africa, yes.  R will eventually fall, yes.  But they will also start gaining back the Southern Pacific islands around turn 4 or so with solid Allied play, I believe.  The IPC of those islands total up most of Africa.  Then, once Japan is completely defeated/neutered, the Allies can take back Africa and begin going after a super-powered Germany/Italy.  US and UK will gain NOs from Philippines and taking an originally-controlled territory by Japan, which will help them quite a bit.

[bugoo]

I think the big key is to stretch Japan out and then push her back.  To do this all allies need to participate.

USSR needs to keep the Siberian troops out there.  I like leaving 3 inf on bury and 5 on stanov.  This way you can take man with 3 inf on turn 2 and still have 5-6 inf out there to play with.  Also, I like placing 1-2 inf on Persia, and/or having a few tanks in caucaus or a fighter roaming around.  This allows you to threaten taking out the Italian fleet, or reinforcing India for an IC.  I don’t see a need to feed china if they lost there fighter.

UK needs to block with there destroyer in SZ 48, place the tranny in 47.  Then decide to go or not for an India IC, and to retake burma or not.  Remember, Japan doesn’t have a lot of troops in the area.  I also like to send the bomber to persia, or to Rhodesia.  As far as purchase an IC in south africa, or Australia is good, as are bombers.

The US should send 2 figs to Australia, send the AC to SZ 46, and get the bombers down there possibly as well.  I like purchasing one bomber with the US and then destroyers and subs and at least one transport.

On turn 2 Japan has alot of things to contend with.  They need to retake man, they need to protect there transports, they want to hit the US fleet but may not, they want to take india but cannot hold it, etc.  Also, on UK2 if russia retakes trans-jordan and they have the planes they can knock out the italian fleet and possibly have more planes down in that area.  Remember, UK bombers can get to the south pacific in one turn and if someone retakes India the US can use it as a landing spot for any planes striking Japanese boats in that SZ.

Even if Russia falls the south pacific is worth just as much, esp if you take Africa.  The key I think is to spend 2 turns focusing on Japan, then quickly shift gears and do a HARD push on France/Africa to get a foothold before Russia falls.

[Funcioneta]

@bugoo:

Even if Russia falls the south pacific is worth just as much, esp if you take Africa.  The key I think is to spend 2 turns focusing on Japan, then quickly shift gears and do a HARD push on France/Africa to get a foothold before Russia falls.

Soviets falling is defeat for allies. You cannot beat Japan at time, you can only take, as much, Pacific islands, but you cannot make a serious land campaign in Asia, so a Japan reduced to China, India and home Japan can collect at least 25-30 IPCs. And I doubt UK can make much without african income

[wodan46]

KJF is something I must conclude as unfeasible.  The problem is that in order to significantly threaten Japan, you must concentrate all your forces and your whole build around it.  A plan that focused is easily countered, because an opponent can see it coming and exploit its vulnerabilities.  For a plan to be effective, it must be adaptable and flexible, to pose many threats at once.  For example, a plan that focuses on allied control of the Mediterranean grants the ability to attack Africa, France, Italy, Balkans/Bulgaria, and the Caucasus all at once, and the opponent, if not able to stop your fleet directly, must be able to deal with the consequences of each.  Similarly, an early Bomber build by Britain lets them SBR Germany or Italy, sink the Italian fleet, block Germany from building a fleet, and threaten an invasion at some later point.

[Jennifer]

I highly discourage the UK Indian IC on Round 1 in 1941.  There is no possible way of holding it and building there on UK 2, not if Japan set up their attacks and NCMs the way I do.

Russia could set up to liberate on Russia 2, but by then, Japan’s gotten a Complex in FIC running and units transported down to make a heavy attack on India Round 3.

If Russia did not set up to liberate on Russia 2 and instead used only what was available, there’s a good chance that Japan will take India again on Japan 2 and permanently deny England the use of the complex.

[bugoo]

I would rarely build it myself, but when russia has 1-2 inf, 2-4 arm, and/or 1-2 figs that can reinforce India on turn 2, Japan has to be aware of that and ensure they send a large force toward India on J1, kinda a forcing there hand so to speak.

[Jennifer]

@bugoo:

I would rarely build it myself, but when russia has 1-2 inf, 2-4 arm, and/or 1-2 figs that can reinforce India on turn 2, Japan has to be aware of that and ensure they send a large force toward India on J1, kinda a forcing there hand so to speak.

Uhm, I don’t think that’s plausible in Round 1.

Yes, it is possible, but it would require you to move the Armor from Russia to Caucasus, pull infantry from Caucasus to Persia, and build a lot of equipment for the specific purpose of liberating India on Russia 2, which means, for Russia 1 and Russia 2 you are giving Germany a virtual pass. (Everything is tied up with liberating India.)

[bugoo]

1-2 inf usually seed china anyway and will not hurt your builds that much.  Building a fighter is not a bad idea, and leaving an armor or two in caucaus doesn’t hurt that much either.  Its not that you will try to liberate India with Russia, its the threat of reinforcing it on R2.  If you send just 1 inf, 2 arm, and 1 fig on top of the 3 inf 1 art already there Japan best ensure they are sending in alot of troops to take it for J2, it would take 5 inf, 1 art, 4 figs with 1 surviving unit from Japan.  Not that you should build the IC but if Japan doesn’t have her fighters in range, or didn’t send a transport to Burma or lost a few more planes than expected it may be a valid move.  And remember, on UK2 there will be 2 inf from trans-jodan showing up along with 2-3 fighters from the US that will be in range to land on turn 2.  Yes russia will miss those units dearly, for a turn.  The other neat thing is on UK2 if you take burma on R3 they can blitz to FIC, not that it would happen but it sure would be neat (and pretty much ensure Japan was out of south asia).

(edit: I did bad math)

[Lucifer]

AA50 is not “cracked” yet, so it’s possible, although unlikely, that KJF strat could work, but in any case I don’t think a KJF strat will be more effective than KGF with NOs off,  a KJF strat in -41 I think is easier when using NOs. I’m thinking that using NOs could be a must for any successful KJF strat in the -41 scenario.

I agree with those who say that an UK IC in India is not sustainable. A KJF strat in -41 must be done without any UK IC in India. IC in Australia could possible work, but I doubt it.

Any strat which is founded on the premise that Russia is helping other allies, is deeply flawed. With aggressive axis play it’s definitely Russia who’s gonna need help from her allies, not the other way around.

[bugoo]

The problem is though if they are not held in south asia and get factory production going down there, how do you push them back?  You must be gearing back up into Europe by turn 3, 4 at the latest to establish a foothold by the time Russia falls and getting at Japan before then is very, very difficult.

[Funcioneta]

KJF will probably fail

But KGF will fail without doubt if axis plays right because Japan is so powerful that can counter KGF with Polar Express so easily.

And I think playing without NOs and without tech is the only chance for allies win. But that kills all the fun  :-P and doesn’t grants a balanced game anyway (I think allies can have a 40 % chance or so)Stingy page 10 of rulebook and stingy chinese setup  :-P

Then only “craked” stuff I can see until now is killing or italian fleet or at least forcing them escape to Indian Ocean, but I fear that is not enough.

[DarthMaximus]

I think KJF is possible, but it depends on your implementation.

Obviously the days of a Kwangbang type attack are over, but that doesn’t mean you can’t get to J.  I think any US Pac strat should be a KJF.  You can survive the loss of Moscow to Ger, if you can get to Japan within 1-3 turns after Mos falls.  After that it is probably too late.

The UKs involvement comes later, unlike previous versions.  I think in AA50 the best course for a KJF is to start US only.  Once you can get to EI/Bor, then you bring in the UK.  They can put an IC on EI and/or Bor, the US follows up with an IC on Phil and you try and close in on Japan.

The importantant thing would be for UK to make sure Russia survives for 5, 6, 7 rds while the US gears up its fleet movements.  Realistically you won’t be able to get to Phil before rd 6 or 7 as the US so you need time.  I’d also recommend the US sending 2 inf per turn to Afr, then to Europe once you can move your UK fleet to Sz 6.

[bugoo]

One thing i’ve been toying with for this strategy is moving the UK atlantic fleet into the pacific.  My usual UK1 buy is a battleship, carrier, and transport.  Then on UK2 moving to SZ 13 if safe and buying bombers, US sends its fig to algeria US2.  Then UK3 smash italian fleet.  On UK4 I could be in SZ 34 if the fleet survived (i will usually sacrifice planes to keep the boats).  Now granted 2 destroyers, 1 BB, and 1 AC isn’t that great of a fleet, and german air probably can (and would if in range) sink it, but it could be improved.  Also, this would allow for an Egypt IC, or Fic IC to be semi protected if the US is keeping the Jap fleet pinned, and keeps Africa in allied hands.  On UK3 I like to start dropping more boats into the Atlantic with the US helping.

[Jennifer]

bugoo:

Here’s what I am assuming.

Round 1:  England builds a Complex in India reinforcing with what it can.

Round 2:  Japan takes the complex in India (probably with one or two infantry left.) and Brings units to FIC with Transports so you can attack India Round 3.

Round 3:  Russia liberates India.  Japan takes it again before England can build there.

Round 4:  Repeat

Keep repeating the Russia liberates while Japan conquers until the Allies give up India and lets Japan have it, or the Allies cannot liberate it and Japan starts building there.

---

I agree with Func.  KGF is doomed without exemplary dice rolls for the allies.  America must at least distract Japan, though, I honestly think that with minimal Russian involvement and China doing what it can, America has an awesome shot at taking out Japan before Russia falls, before Italy falls and before Germany falls.  If you’re lucky, you might even do it before Africa is completely liberated!

Thing is, Japan and America are hypersensitive to islands in the Pacific. (At least if you play with NOs.)  There’s 3 American NOs that can be lost from attacks by Japan in the Pacific (North America, Philippines, Pacific Islands) there’s one that be gained for England (taking any originally orange territory) and 3 that can be lost by Japan by attacks from the Pacific (Manchuria/Kwang, Pacific Islands, Australia/India).

Not to mention, you have a lot of territories that can be liberated for England to help them in their fight.  Can’t think of anything quite as annoying with Germany as having an England collecting for Australia, Borneo, New Guinea and E. Indies!

[Bigtiti]

i wouldn’t do KJF in 1941
i tried it once

1. you can’t put IC with US in pacific (all turns british)
2. germany can crush russia pretty easily
   and this was all without NO’s
   with, i wouldn’t try it

1942, is allot better, especially with NO’s

[bugoo]

Jenn:

No not at all.

Round 1 Russia sent 2 inf to persia, and ensured there were an armor to two in cauc and builds a fig, somewhere. UK builds complex, moves TJ inf to persia, fig to India if alive if it seems viable after J1.  If not, 3 bombers would be a good move as russia can liberate TJ for a LZ, or go standard build or whatever.

Round 2 Russia sends what it can to India to ensure it holds. (fig, inf in persia, armors, whatever).  Or pulls its 2 inf investment back out of persia.

Now we go into the realm of what would be craziness but awesome.

UK2 attacks burma and builds in India.

R3 blitzes into FIC.

Now you would not do this AT ALL assuming Japan does a standard opening and aims to hit india hard, or if germany purchased all tanks.  But, the only investment are things that Russia would do anyway so the cost is very low and the potential pay off if Japan goes the northern route, or germany builds defensive, or a bomber on turn 1, and you can pull it off are worth it in my mind.

The thing about allied strats in AA50 is the axis have the initiative.  You must react to what they do, hit them where they are weak, retreat where you are strong.  Go KJF if you can, go KGF if they are open to it.  But those 2 inf in persia, or 2 figs, or arm in caucaus, can give you an opportunity to hurt Japan and push her back hard.  Or kill the Italian navy, or both.

Everyone assumes that on J2 japan invades half the board, they cannot send all there forces everywhere at once.  They must leave themselves open somewhere, and that is where you push back.  In all the games i’ve played J2 is a messier turn than J1.

In closing I believe the India IC is something that should be done rarely, and only when the axis give the opening.