Is There a KJF Strategy in AA41?

[Zhukov44]

One of the big things that get in the way of a KJF in the Revised style is that it’s hard for Russia to make an impact against Japan.  A big (weak) China strengthens Japan enormously, because it takes so long for Russia to get close to the coast to block the Jap expansion.  In Revised, it’s possible to immediately threaten the Pacific Coast…not so here.

The classic KJF move of advancing into Manchuria (or at least threatening this advance) is effectively neutered by Japan’s existing fighter and transport fleets.  Stacking Manch is suicidal, while the opportunity cost to Japan isn’t bad given the reward.  Russia can try to support China from the West, but it can’t realistically spare many units, and only 2-3 inf doesn’t seem to have much (if any) effect on Japan’s expansion in China, given that China often has 1 or less inf left after J1.

It seems that at any point in the KJF, Germany can switch to armor buys and (as Bugoo notes) use the Italian can opener to threaten Moscow.  It’s tough for Russia to do anything besides face Germany, even though it’s the only power able to do something about Japan’s land expansion.

[Panzer Leader]

@Zhukov44:

One of the big things that get in the way of a KJF in the Revised style is that it’s hard for Russia to make an impact against Japan.  A big (weak) China strengthens Japan enormously, because it takes so long for Russia to get close to the coast to block the Jap expansion.  In Revised, it’s possible to immediately threaten the Pacific Coast…not so here.

The classic KJF move of advancing into Manchuria (or at least threatening this advance) is effectively neutered by Japan’s existing fighter and transport fleets.  Stacking Manch is suicidal, while the opportunity cost to Japan isn’t bad given the reward.  Russia can try to support China from the West, but it can’t realistically spare many units, and only 2-3 inf doesn’t seem to have much (if any) effect on Japan’s expansion in China, given that China often has 1 or less inf left after J1.

It seems that at any point in the KJF, Germany can switch to armor buys and (as Bugoo notes) use the Italian can opener to threaten Moscow.  It’s tough for Russia to do anything besides face Germany, even though it’s the only power able to do something about Japan’s land expansion.

I agree with your statements. Russia is not very effective against Japan and Germany will crush if they try to go after Japan. Russia simply does not have enough to fight Italy, Germany and Japan. That is why US and UK have to deal with Japan while Russia stops Germany’s (& Italy’s) advance. UK has got it the toughest as they need to go against all three axis powers right from the beginning.

[cymerdown]

Nah, Japan is just too unstoppable in '41.  Even if you pull all the possible resources you can summon, like India & Australia ICs, pulling the US fighters, Russian INF and ARM from Caucasus, all you can do is slow Japan down… by the time you can make any headway against a good opponent, Moscow is about to fall.  It just can’t realistically be done without huge help from the dice.

[Pin]

A kjf is very much possible, but you have to play for it from turn 1. Look on my running tourney game for how to do it. http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=15572.0

[Yoshi]

Well, when on J1 the Japan BB is killed by the US DD, I think that helps a lot a KJF strategy ;)

[Pin]

yup, but search up my other games in the league. The big picture stays the same. If you setup a sinking off jap trannie in z38 with a russian bmber buy T1, and setup of transfer of either russian armors or inf to India on T2 (depening on how the eastern front is after G1, if you can afford move 2inf to Persia, if not just make sure you have 2-3 tanks in Cau so you can move them if needed.)

US 1 move 2fgt + 1bmber to Aus, and the UK dd from z41 > z48 to prevent a hard hit on australia Jap 2. (IF jap have moved the cruiser there on T1 it might prevent an IC if everything else went perfect, not saying there aint a counter to this strat but it works almost everytime). US buys solely for Pacific.

This forces:
a) Jap to go all navy with its builds, meaning not enough ground forces enters mainland Asia, and US and Japan will keep each other at bay in z56 and z62. And the UK can sweep up mainland Asia, and might even be able to regain some grounds on the islands or in Africa without using atlantic fleet for it.

b) Jap ignores the US navy for too long, and its just a matter of time before the US will regain all the islands and kill of the remaining jap forces. (my tourney game this is the case)

Remember that when you LET Japan expand, it wont match US cash til T3, if you go for a contain strategy Japan will never get much higher then the US and it might even never get above the US income.

The key is to recognise the insane amount of IPC and bonuses in the pacific that either lets Japan become an uncontrollable monster or gimp them hard fast.

[Yoshi]

Yeah I agree with your ideas, and also think that doing something against Japan from the begginning can be nice.

I usually buy a bomber R1, stack Buryatia, put 2inf in China, and put at least two tanks in Caucasus, in order to have options in Asia / Pacific after. It does not cost a lot to Russia (and in worst case, you just keep your units on the German front). But if Japan answers well and is not screwed by the dices, I think it is really uneasy to make something serious against them.

Nevertheless, Japan power can decrease very fast if they are pressured from the beginning and something does not go well / they make a mistake.

In the same way, I think that you can always contain Japan. The problem is to contain Japan and keeping Russia from Italy & Germany.

[Lucifer]

@Funcioneta:

I don’t see how KGF can work in AA50. You are trying using a tactic that worked in Revised 50 % of times (assuming bid), but in this game axis is way richer than in Revised and USSR is about the same it was in Revised

Wrong again…KJF in Revised fails 99.99% of all times against decent players. The only option for allies in revised to win a kjf game is if Japan+Germany has extremely poor dice, or the allied player is much more experienced than the axis player. Moscow will fall long before Japan in kjf. How come only 2-3 players tried kjf against me, and those games was lost for allies in rnd3 or sooner.

As for AA50-41 playing axis, I might have lost to a kjf strat many months ago, I can’t say for sure that I haven’t lost a single kjf game, but almost all my losses in 41 was against a kgf strat by allies.

[Zhukov44]

That’s an exaggeration Sub….KJF probably fails 80% or more in a ll 9 bid expert scenario but if you think it’s that hopeless you probably haven’t gone up against the best KJF experts.  I don’t know if you are active on GTO but you should try playing someone like Bmaster or Acesup and give them a reasonable bid you might be surprised how tough it gets for Axis.  The thing is, it’s best to lower the bid to 6 or so in any game where Allies build an India complex…this makes for an extremely fun game for both sides as it’s all action from the start.  That said, there are players who can beat experts with 8-9 bids…it’s just hard to do and never as reliable as KGF/Lurch tactics.

Segway to the topic…what can be concluded (imho) is (so far) KJF strategies seem much more effective in Revised than in AA50.  I’m no noob at Revised and have lost to KJF several times and have lost to it recently–can’t say the same about AA41.

[Lucifer]

I haven’t been playing at GTO, only against the AI. And it has been several months since I played much revised. After AA50 was available in TripleA thats the name of the game!
But I think TripleA players, at least the best ladder players is as good as the GTO players. What matters is experience, (not where you play), perhaps at least hundreds of A&A games is needed to be “better than just decent”. That’s a lot of training.

AA50 +NOs are different in many ways than revised, b/c the map and the money is different enough so that we can’t use the same combination of overall strats and tactics in the same way as revised.
In AA50 (+NO) there’s money all over the map, and a balanced game to get money and production is important, more complex and more “widely” than in Revised.

The most effective overall allies strat in AA50 (+NO), imo, is to keep the second US NO as long as possible, but then send everything else against Europe and Africa.

By kjf I define that as using everything what US build from rnd1 against Japan. What is in EUS from start can ofc go to Africa or Europe, but everything else must be used against Japan, building and moving units from LA,  or else it is not kjf. A US pac strat is not the same as kjf. With US aircraft in both pacific and Europe, that’s not kjf, that’s a balanced strat, and it can be a good one, depending on the situation in any specific game.

Other allied powers can help in a pure kjf ofc, this will only make it easier for Italy+Germany to take all of Africa and then Moscow after a few turns.
Point is that w/o kgf, or a balanced strat, Italy will not be contested at all, and UK is not strong enough to help Russia AND Italy against the Germans.

[Zhukov44]

Yeah TripleA has great players, I just haven’t played enough there to know who is good at KJF.

I agree with your analysis.  A strong point of AA50 is there should always be some Pacific conflict–as Allies it’s definitely wise to contest those Pacific NOs as long as it pays off.  But I’m skeptical whether Allies can indulge in much more than that against a skilled Axis without a lucky tech or dice god intervention.

In Revised, by contrast, I think it’s been established that it is possible to neuter Japan through coordinated Allied action and decide the game that way.  Though admittedly this may not be the most reliable strat against the strongest opposition–it can work.

The difference is that in Revised you have an instant mainland component to the KJF…  Allies can pressure Japan immediately on the mainland with Russia, with the USA China forces and air, and with the India garrison and the RAF.  In 41, China is effectively dead after J1, and Russia cannot afford to intervene (even if it does, China is a huge buffer for Japan).  India is far away from the action and easily neutralized, and UK has no planes and hardly any boats in the region…  This leaves the USA to fight essentially alone.

KJF seems more promising in AA:50 42 scenario, where Japan only starts with 1 transport and is thus far more vulnerable.

[Funcioneta]

@Subotai:

By kjf I define that as using everything what US build from rnd1 against Japan. What is in EUS from start can ofc go to Africa or Europe, but everything else must be used against Japan, building and moving units from LA,  or else it is not kjf. A US pac strat is not the same as kjf. With US aircraft in both pacific and Europe, that’s not kjf, that’s a balanced strat, and it can be a good one, depending on the situation in any specific game

That is fun, usually a balanced strat in Revised is labeled as “KJF”. I don’t like that name, but many use it as opposed to “try ignore Japan” strats (called KGF). Just I was using “KJF” label as a reference, but in fact a so-called KJF in Revised is a balanced approach, sometimes involving India+Sinkiang ICs, but always including a Pacific allied navy

It works 50% of times if you know how do it (assume bid is not greater than 9). Of course, I don’t use that house rule called LL, that could alter (and probably does) the ratio of victories

Same goes for Anniversary, balanced game is labeled sometimes as KJF. However, depending from scenario, chances of victory vary assuming balanced,experienced players. 1941 gives monster advantage to axis, but a bit lesser advantage to axis if you make a balanced approach; 1942 gives moderate advantage to axis if balanced approach and monster advantage to axis in case of KGF

All assuming NOs in play. Without NOs, 1942 scenario is probably almost balanced

[Funcioneta]

Mmm… after thinking from a technical point of view, in fact I should answer there is NOT a KJF strat in AA41 and for that matters also not in AA50-42 and Revised, they should be called balanced approachs  :|

Also KGF should be called “invite Japan to enter in America”, but that is more a philosophical point of view …  :roll:

[bongaroo]

Just recently a lot of people playing me in the league are using KJF strats.  They move to stack IND from turn 1 and make an effort to keep japan contained.  I’m still not exactly sure how to face it but I think that with Japan being able to outproduce an Indian IC that in the end it is doomed.

If the US gets a fleet threatening fast enough though it gets a lot tougher for Japan.  Russia generally gets beat up on a lot worse with only the UK threatening from the Atlantic.

[cymerdown]

My advice is this: make careful use of deadzoning tactics to slow down the Allied advance as long as possible.  Until their combined navy’s defensive strength surpasses your offensive strength, they dare not move within range.  And this definitely takes a while to accomplish, as long as your maintaining the arms race while maintaining a minimum shuck of 4 land units/turn to keep Asia in check.  One example is splitting your fleet between SZ62 and SZ36 once the Allies start to press in.  From there, you protect your FIC shuck, which allows you to keep India restrained, and you also will deadzone most of the seazones close to Japan.  There are many methods of slowing down the Allies, like DD blocking, that was just one example.  With any luck, you’ll hold out long enough for G&I to take Moscow.

[Lucifer]

If any power is ignored totally, this is not a good strat.
As for KGF or KJF strats, regardless of AA50 or Revised, any decent player will try to slow down Japan as long as possible, either in Novo or Sink or somewhere else.
An IC in India cannot be defended against a determined player in Revised/AA42 or AA50-41. In AA50-42 it can possibly hold a few rnds, b/c Japan have 4 less transports.

I can say for sure that any KJF strat in 41 is inefficient. You need better dice, or better playing skills, and that is not a strat…. :roll:

[axis_roll]

@Subotai:

I can say for sure that any KJF strat in 41 is inefficient. You need better dice, or better playing skills, and that is not a strat…. :roll:

I would agree with you Subotai, that any KJF strat in 41 is inefficient.

however, what if Japan suffers some bad dice on J1?
If there a go/no go indicator for a possible KJF? 
Japan loses 2 ftrs?  3?

Just throwing the idea out there for discussion.

[Bardoly]

@axis_roll:

@Subotai:

I can say for sure that any KJF strat in 41 is inefficient. You need better dice, or better playing skills, and that is not a strat…. :roll:

I would agree with you Subotai, that any KJF strat in 41 is inefficient.

however, what if Japan suffers some bad dice on J1?
If there a go/no go indicator for a possible KJF? 
Japan loses 2 ftrs?  3?

Just throwing the idea out there for discussion.

If what you are saying is that a balanced strat in ’41 is inefficient, then I have to disagree with you.

I almost always buy a bomber and 1 or more armor units for Caucausas on R1 just to have the option open for a UK1 Indian IC.  I don’t always build a UK1 Indian IC, but I will often pick off an undefended Sumatran transport with the Russian bomber unless I really need it elsewhere.  In 2 of my recent games with me playing the Allies, Japan attacked Yunnan as is usual, and completely failed both times, losing 3 infantry and 2 fighters in the process and leaving Fic open to the UK Burmese infantry unit walking in for 2 IPCs and the +5 NO.  This only left 2 infantry and 2 fighters in range of India on J2, so this seemed to be an obvious signal to build an Indian IC, but of course, this situation is not normal.

Also, the fact that Japan has 5 starting transports doesn’t necessarily spell doom for the UK in the Pacific theatre, because often, 2 of them can be picked off before J2.  Examples:  a sz37 or 38 tr can be hit by a Cau bmb.  A sz61 tr can be hit by the Wus bmb if Fukien or Kwangtung were not both captured.  A sz 48 tr (with or without a cruiser) can be hit by 2 fighters and 1 bmb if necessary.  A sz 62 tr can be hit by the Wus bmb.  Even if the US must sacrifice an air unit or two, America’s IPCs are a little less valuable than the UK’s, so if the UK is keeping its IPC level up at the expense of some US IPCs, then I consider it IPCs well-spent.

[Zhukov44]

@axis_roll:

[
however, what if Japan suffers some bad dice on J1?
If there a go/no go indicator for a possible KJF?  
Japan loses 2 ftrs?  3?

[/quote]

It’s scary to think that the most Japan could lose J1 in a ll game would be 3 fighters.  3 is a lot, but it would have to be in combination with losing a lot of inf too (at least 5 methinks).  before Japan seems weak enough that they could be neutered and denied their NOs.

KJF tactics, be it a Pacific offensive or an India factory, can be the optimal move in conjunction with some of the exceptional circumstances illustrated above (say Yunnan fails totally and Japan has lost the Fico planes or the Japs lose their BB to the American destroyer).  In these cases a skilled player should be ready to exploit the opening.  The problem is….these openings might appear less as people get better at playing Japan in 41.  Re. open transports for example…even if Japan gets diced up, the only transport that can’t be protected would be the one off Sumatra…everything else can be covered since only 1 US bomber is in range.  I have no problem sacrificing this transport since taking Sumatra is +9.

[Lucifer]

A “pure” kjf can mean US sending everything against the japs, a balanced strat can mean that the US have a few subs, or place newly built bmrs in WUS, even if the bmrs fly to London or Africa later. The trick is for the US to keep the second NO as long as possible, the Philippines NO can only possibly be taken back in a pure kjf.

If everything goes bad for Japan J1, this is dice luck, not strats. An Indian IC cannot hold if the Japanese player wants India.

In a pure kjf Germany and Italy will be too strong normally, assuming decent players and fair dice for both sides.