Was KJF really that bad?

[AndrewAAGamer]

@thedesertfox said in Was KJF really that bad?:

So I’ve counted out all the provinces and in order for Japan to control that much money, they need to have taken ALL of China, ALL of the money islands and ALL of Southeast Asia. That’s without Australia, Honolulu, and Russia.

Agreed. Or India instead of all of China. I am not understanding why you seem to think this is unreasonable. Japan can impose her will on China or India, that is not hard to do. Japan simply says I am going to take India and they do. Or she says I am going to take China and she does. That is a foregone conclusion and nothing the Allies do will stop her from taking one or the other. What is difficult for Japan is to do both… take China and India. It is even more difficult with ANZAC and the US both blasting away at the Money Islands and Russia threatening her northern flank.

But without the US blasting away at her Japan will gobble up both India and China, then scarf down some Russia territories, and then go “Hmmm, I am still hungry, what is for dessert? How about Hawaii or Sydney they both are very tasty?”

@thedesertfox said in Was KJF really that bad?:

Now do keep in mind, I even admitted to the fact that, yes, Floating Bridge is not viable should the Japanese threaten to win the game by taking 6 victory cities.

Excellent; we agree. When you first proposed the idea of the Floating Bridge it sounded like a poor strategy which is why I responded to your post. Now we agree it is not a viable strategy my work here is done. :)

[SuperbattleshipYamato]

@andrewaagamer

Love your analogy of Japan taking Hawaii for dessert.

[TheDesertFox]

@andrewaagamer said in Was KJF really that bad?:

Agreed. Or India instead of all of China. I am not understanding why you seem to think this is unreasonable. Japan can impose her will on China or India, that is not hard to do. Japan simply says I am going to take India and they do. Or she says I am going to take China and she does. That is a foregone conclusion and nothing the Allies do will stop her from taking one or the other. What is difficult for Japan is to do both… take China and India. It is even more difficult with ANZAC and the US both blasting away at the Money Islands and Russia threatening her northern flank.

Haven’t disagreed once here. Japan has the undying ability to impose her will on anybody she wants. However, she does not have the ability to impose her will on EVERYONE. That’s been my whole focal point this entire time that you for some reason have been dodging… What’s difficult for Japan is to go after not only China and India but to also branch out to either ANZAC or Honolulu and the United States. Point is, Japan can’t go after everything, and that’s exactly the thing I’ve been saying to take advantage of.

But without the US blasting away at her Japan will gobble up both India and China, then scarf down some Russia territories, and then go “Hmmm, I am still hungry, what is for dessert? How about Hawaii or Sydney they both are very tasty?”

You might wanna find new players to play the Allies if you’re just casually “gobbling up” both India and China. I’m not sure if you’re used to people turtling on India and Yunnan but it just isn’t as simple as that, lol. This goes down to one of the most basic principles of warfare being: “It’s better to fight your enemy all together than one at a time.” So, why not do that? Why not fight Japan altogether then just let China die then India then scratch your head as the U.S wondering, “Man, why did they fall? Surely they should have been able to fight Japan all on their own, right?” This game was designed so that Japan in the initial stages of the game, is far more powerful then her counterparts. Which is exactly why each of the Pacific Allies needs to work in unison or else it just doesn’t work.

Excellent; we agree. When you first proposed the idea of the Floating Bridge it sounded like a poor strategy which is why I responded to your post. Now we agree it is not a viable strategy my work here is done. :)

No, we don’t agree. Unlike you, I learned how to turn lemons into lemonade instead of throwing them in the garbage can. It is a viable strategy so long as you can do the one and only job you have as the United States, that job being to fight the good fight in the Pacific in case you didn’t realize.

[SuperbattleshipYamato]

@thedesertfox

I’ll try a Pacific Fleet sometime.

I usually take Iraq or Ethiopia only if an invasion of Tobruk is not done.

In order to capture Ethiopia with 95+% odds you need that mechanised infantry from Egypt which then makes an invasion of Tobruk not viable.

Britain shouldn’t take Java, it’s usually Sumatra due to ANZAC using their starting units to take Java in the first turn. The effect is the same though.

[TheDesertFox]

@superbattleshipyamato

Sorry, i meant Sumatra, not Java. I always get those islands mixed up lol. You’re absolutely right though about Sumatra, gives them a much needed economic boost and actually applies pressure to Japan to be more aggressive, but I guess to some people that just isn’t possible.

[AdmirlScuttlebut]

@superbattleshipyamato I need to try a test run of J1 as well and see if The Good Captain was playing some quality players.

[AndrewAAGamer]

@TheDesertFox

We are talking Apples and Oranges. You continue to switch back and forth between a focused strategy on Japan and the Floating Bridge strategy. I have stayed focused on strictly the Floating Bridge discussion.

If you want to say that Japan cannot do everything IF the USA provides sufficient resources into the Pacific then I agree with that 100%. That has not been my argument. My point is that trying this Floating Bridge strategy would impose such a material loss for the US that they CANNOT provide enough resources into the Pacific to stop Japan.

If you remove $63 from the US over the first 1-4 Turns (9 additional transports) and then $32 more, at a minimum, every Turn thereafter by Turn 8 we are talking almost 200 IPC worth of resources. There is no way the US is going to have a remotely even fleet to the Japanese down 200 IPC.

Thus, by Turn 8/9/10 when Japan has taken China, India and some of Russia they will Turn towards Sydney/Hawaii and there will not be a big enough fleet there to stop them.

[TheDesertFox]

@andrewaagamer said in Was KJF really that bad?:

If you want to say that Japan cannot do everything IF the USA provides sufficient resources into the Pacific then I agree with that 100%. That has not been my argument. My point is that trying this Floating Bridge strategy would impose such a material loss for the US that they CANNOT provide enough resources into the Pacific to stop Japan.

How do you know that it will? You clearly haven’t tried it before, you’re just speculating that it could never work so where’s the credibility in your statements? I’ve tried Floating Bridge before, and it works like a charmer against Germany alongside the UK and Russia. I think you’re seriously misunderstanding how much money the U.S in reality is having to spend VS what you see on paper. How do you know that Floating Bridge prevents the Americans from being able to adequately build up in the Pacific? Once again, you haven’t tried it so you wouldn’t know. I on the other hand, have tried it. I can guarantee you I never had any problems with my Pacific military either, all the while maintaining Floating Bridge in a timely manner.

If you remove $63 from the US over the first 1-4 Turns (9 additional transports) and then $32 more, at a minimum, every Turn thereafter by Turn 8 we are talking almost 200 IPC worth of resources. There is no way the US is going to have a remotely even fleet to the Japanese down 200 IPC.

You assume that the U.S is going to straight up just pump out transports in the beginning… this is not true. In fact, you don’t start building transports until turn 3 while you bolster the Pacific Fleet and add a few ships to the Atlantic fleet as well.

Thus, by Turn 8/9/10 when Japan has taken China, India and some of Russia they will Turn towards Sydney/Hawaii and there will not be a big enough fleet there to stop them.

Again, you’re not making any headway by just speculating what might happen… play it out. Try it out. I think you’d be genuinely surprised how effective it can be. I never had any problems with Japan, in fact, some of the things I did as the U.S were instrumental in taking Japan down in my playthroughs and testruns. By turn 2, The U.S can have 3 Carriers and 2 battleships in the Pacific Ocean along with all their other smaller vessels. That’s a large enough navy to get the attention of the player playing Japan and hell, if they don’t pay it any notice then great for me, it means I’ll be able to start moving towards the Caroline Islands and then the Philliphines or move North toward Japan.

[AndrewAAGamer]

I don’t have to literally jump off a cliff to figure out that it is a bad idea.

You play how you want. I have already stated my opinion. If you don’t like it; ignore it. Please try this strategy out against me if we ever run into each other in a Playoff game.

[SuperbattleshipYamato]

@admirlscuttlebut

As Japan I almost never do a J1. As an amateur scholar of Wordl War 2 history it’s much better to wait for the Allies to declare war. More of a morale boost. The one time I tried J1 the US caused more than one problem in Europe too. Took a ton of mistakes for the Allies to lose, and they lost just barely.

[SuperbattleshipYamato]

@andrewaagamer

I would certainly like to see that! Invite me to it!

[TheDesertFox]

@andrewaagamer

Good talk regardless, Andrew. Never said I didn’t like your opinion, only correcting and realigning your misunderstanding about what I’m talking about.

And yes, I do agree with you. What you’ve said has been your God-given opinion, and it will remain exactly that until you take a step toward playing out what I’m talking about instead of just speculating and theorizing about how Japan is gonna’ unleash their hundreds of infantry units and their 1000 warships upon the Allied powers in the Pacific without any opposition and win the game with their 100+ IPCs every turn. Cheers man.

[AdmirlScuttlebut]

@andrewaagamer The Good Corporal played it out in his you tube video on the subject. the way he did it J1 looked devistating.

[TheDesertFox]

@admirlscuttlebut

I’ll probably check that video out, I’m curious how he does his J1 attack.

[AndrewAAGamer]

@AdmirlScuttlebut Yes, I am aware of the J1 DOW, and in fact I almost exclusively use it as it puts India at risk much sooner even though it brings the US into play earlier too.

@TheDesertFox If you are not using the J1 DOW opening perhaps that is why you have never seen Japan over $70 which is routine.

[TheDesertFox]

@andrewaagamer

I have used it before. I’m actually doing a test run right now based on the constraints that you’ve laid down to see if the Pacific Allies can beat a strictly Ground and Pound devoted Japan.

[TheDesertFox]

@cornwallis said in Was KJF really that bad?:

@thedesertfox can you elaborate on your combineren UK ANZAC fleet strategy?
What do you buy for each country and what are the moves?

Currently in the process of doing this strategy that I ended up calling the T.N.N strat, or the Two Nation Navy strategy in a test run. I’ll make another thread going more in depth of it once I’m finished.

[Arthur Bomber Harris]

I don’t see how you can successfully combine the UK and ANZAC fleets in a normal game where the Axis does a normal J1 opener. They capture all of the money islands on turn 2, and recombine into a strong fleet again before the Allies have a chance to do much mischief. I always bring my SZ39 fleet west because they would be obliterated if those ships tried to head east. The med fleet cannot reach the allied pacific fleet until it is too late to be of much use.

Japan always reaches $70+ in my games unless there is a sizable Allied bid spent to reinforce Yunnan on turns 1-3. I am agreeing with Andrew that your strategies make sense because you are playing low-quality opponents.

[TheDesertFox]

@arthur-bomber-harris

Understandable, and by no means am I doubting Japan’s ability to impose their will. To get something straight, what Andrew was argueing was that the U.S would not be able to deliver an adequate amount of force in the Pacific to fight Japan should they choose to commit to building a floating bridge to fight Germany. I disagree. America has more then enough money to build up in the Pacific while continuing to do their floating bridge.

I’m not saying that you ought to send your fleet in immediately… even I know that’s suicide. I’m not suggesting that the UK is just gonna send in their cruisers and destroyers to try and fight the might of Japan. Moreover, part of this strategy also involves the British improving their airpower. My current testrun I’m using The Good Captain’s J1 that he made and so far it’s going terribly for Japan. Multiple destroyed transports, China is holding in Yunnan and the British and ANZAC aren’t letting up either all the while the Americans have built up a sizeable fleet that’s threatening the homeland. I’ll keep testing J1 openings though to see how Japan can casually make 70 IPCs without any opposition from the Pacific allies. Just know that the Two Nation Navy strategy that I’m developing doesn’t involve the UK China and ANZAC turtling up like most of these Allied players do… I’ve found in multiple testruns that Japan doesn’t have an easy time when the UK and China oppose them, but who knows maybe that’s just a fluke.

[SuperbattleshipYamato]

@thedesertfox

I’m testing this strategy right now. I’m playing against myself. As someone rooting for the Axis I need some help as Japan.

https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/39806/help-with-axis-game

Things are going very badly for Japan, though some of it was due to very bad luck.