Is There a KJF Strategy in AA41?

[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.

[Funcioneta]

@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:

Sure, but also KGF is innefficient. And by the way, also the balanced approach (the less bad strat). There is not a efficient strat in 1941 because that scenario is utterly broken

[Funcioneta]

@Zhukov44:

The problem is….these openings might appear less as people get better at playing Japan in 41

That’s the problem, as players learn to play better Japan, chances of allied vitories go down to zero. I guess most of allied victories in league are due patetic dices or more probably, new players that doesn’t know how exploit Japan’s unique advantages (and also exploit west axis advantages)

More games I play or watch, more convinced I’m AA50 is broken. Problems are:

• China killed J1
• Most of UK and USA’s fleet killed round 1
• Japan starts with 5 trannies (ouch!)
• Axis gets economic advantage too easily (round 3-4)
• No way of holding India
• Even if China is ignored or survives with miracle dices J1, her broken rules made her powerless to do a real difference

Only chance of doing some with allies is very agressive USSR. That can be achieved with skill, only to see with despair how USSR’s allies collapse when USSR was going to get advantage over Germany. Usually Japan reaches to USSR’s rear just at time to save Germany from Soviets  :-P because China has been toasted round 1

I’m annoyed how Larry did a great effort to make China implayable but had no time to doing a non-agression treaty rule

1942. Here the situation is a bit better for allies. India can hold, more boats survive axis carnage of round 1 and China usually gets killed round 3-4 instead round 1 but …

• Germany has a IC at Karelia. There is no way of USSR holding it; they could be able of trading in some rares cases, but most times Germany will start to use the IC round 3 or 4. This is BIG advantage to axis plans
• Japan can choose how toast allies: a full attack on China or a full attack on US fleet. Any of them is easy to do and good. Again, UK usually loses all Indian fleet and has NO starting ANZAC fleet
• Germany and Italy have enough starting income and units do a naval strat and STILL holding USSR. The trick is ensure they hold enough for Japan overcome allied weakness in Pacific to win by economic superioriy, but sometimes axis has even a chance of winning Atlantic battle
• If Germany pursues a naval strat, USA has not enough income to support a 2 front war, and ignoring one of the enemies is even a worse strat because the “ignored” will lead the attack on American mainland (Brazil, Canada if west axis is ignored; Alaska, Canada if Japan is ignored)
• China’s broken rules make them again powerless to stop Japan, even if Japan spares China at first 2-3 rounds. The Flying Tigers are killed J1 again and no chance of rebuilding even

So, 1942, even if gives more chances to allies than 1941, gives advantage to axis. At least in 1942 allies can have some fun because most of them can be hold (but they have few chances of holding all of them) and axis has also some fun because they have to think a bit to win. But the fail continues being: axis starts with militar advantage and has a great chance of getting also economic advantage after a few turns, so the allies are who have to run and take risks before axis can exploit axis economic advantage. This is opposite to Classic and Revised dinamic where axis was the one that had to overcome allied economic advantage (but still the chances for axis were way higher (due their military starting advantage), many agree with a 40%, and that was the reason a fix solved the unbalance so easily that time)

Fixes for this:

• Playing without NOs: only works in 1942, but even then the stuff seems too much to Revised. Stick to Revised instead  :-P There is a chance that even that is not enough, China is still a sparring
• 1941 with NOs: no easy solution; rework all the Pacific setup and chinese rules
• 1942:
    * Make China playable (first to do is delete irreal invisible ACME walls)
    * Delete German IC at Karelia (seems soviet but in fact is german) or move the IC to Novo or Ark to make it soviet instead german
    * Boost a bit US fleets at z10 and z56 to ensure USA has something to use at start OR boost z2 UK’s fleet
    * Maybe a UK IC at India or SAF
    * Give ANZAC some fleet
    * It’s possible that some short of allied bid could work if it doesn’t mean a back of ignore Japan fanmania

Probably a playable China and deleting german IC at Karelia will be enough

[Lucifer]

There is no need for more than a $9 bid to allies in AA50-41 +NOs, one unit pr. TT.

Without NOs, 41 is favored to allies. I didn’t play enough -NO games to determine how high bid the axis would need then, but probably less than in Revised. Same goes for the 42 scenario.

And you will lose to a good allied player in a AA50-41 +NO, regular dice and no bids setting if you don’t do the right first rnd moves, or if you have very bad dice, which ofc happens less than 50% of all games.

[Funcioneta]

@Subotai:

There is no need for more than a $9 bid to allies in AA50-41 +NOs, one unit pr. TT.

That is not enough to save China (even if you deploy all the inf to Yunnan) and not enough to save both of Egypt and z2. If dd to z2, you saved Egypt but z2 still taken; if (say) infs to egy, kar, ind, you saved Egypt but still z2 is taken. If full bid to Egypt, maybe you saved all Africa; in latter case, it’s possible that the game is almost balanced if germans don’t take TRJ, UK sends trj infs to Egypt and buy a IC at Egypt UK1. It could be valid for balance purposes, but I fear a terrible side effect: KGF fanmania strikes back (so in that case cure is worst than illness)

So, with one unit/TT, I’d say not. In case of full bid, I’d say I prefer playing Revised if we are going to revert to 100% of KGF games

[Funcioneta]

@Subotai:

Without NOs, 41 is favored to allies. I didn’t play enough -NO games to determine how high bid the axis would need then, but probably less than in Revised. Same goes for the 42 scenario.

Disagree, 41 still favors axis and 42 is almost balanced in case of no NOs. That said, playing without NOs is not the solution I want

[Funcioneta]

@Subotai:

And you will lose to a good allied player in a AA50-41 +NO, regular dice and no bids setting if you don’t do the right first rnd moves, or if you have very bad dice, which ofc happens less than 50% of all games.

Agreed, but I don’t want trust that happening in all games, specially in tourneys. Hoping your rival does bad movement or gets horrible dice is not a strategy, as someone said  :roll: Anyway, I still want play a game of AA41 with axis and feel I won by better strats and not due a broken setup. In vanilla 41, playing axis is very boring because all you have to do to win is doing decent moves and not having massive hordes of bad dices (latter can be avoided not doing risky attacks without need)

Just to be clear: I’d define Revised as unbalanced (only for 1 to 1 PBEM, multiplayer is OK) but still playable in vanilla, while AA41 is a broken scenario