Kgf vs. kjf

[strategic planner]

both

[Zhukov44]

Going both Atlantic and Pacific doesn’t seem to work often–it can be difficult to compete with Axis air forces.  Also KJF is very hard to pull off.

A good KGF player will hurt/irritate Japan as much as possible with subs and bombers. So the optimal KGF probably involves more Pacific combat then in Revised, but it’s a KGF nonetheless.

Navies have it tougher in 42.  This isn’t all bad news for USA vis a vis Japan, since USA can kill Japan’s navy.  However it’s hard to wrest the empire away from the Nips before Russia falls.

So far my attempts to play an India factory have been fun but not terribly successful–a disciplined German player takes Moscow before I’m finished beating down Japan.  I will try some more with a USA Pac plus UK in Africa/Europe focus and see how it goes.

Anyway, KGF seems to work ok, the jury is still out on other strategies.

[Col. Ty Webb]

I’m with Cromwell. Maybe after a couple of turns things will play out (dice rolls, moves by opponents) to where it makes sense to do one or the other. I think going into the game with one of those strategies from the beginning isn’t the smartest move, though. It leaves you too open to a counter in my opinion.

[strategic planner]

lets see, im not a vet but i would like to be feared.      lets play spring 42, 4-5 players. I call dibs on germany!

[Concealer]

I’m not sure why you call them the “easiest” strategies. If something works it works. There are counters to it. You could even exploit someone if you see them go for a KGF or KJF strategy. I have tried to split my attacks as the allies in many games and in all honesty it just makes for a longer game. Either you go for a kill first strategy and win, or you lose! Either way you find out by round 6 (usually).

If you were in a real war scenario and had to strategical command an army your subordinates would be furious with you, perhaps even overthrow you if they could, if you chose the most difficult strategy to win with. True veterans or not, if someone uses a strategy over and over on you then you must find a way to counter it. I think difficult and easy are the wrong term. Perhaps standard and non-standard would be more accurate?

When my friends and I play fighting games we always find a move that we say is “cheap.” For example, “Dude, that move is so cheap! Do something else!” What we mean is, “I hate that move I can’t stop it!” Once we find a way to stop or counter it we don’t scream at each other…well usually we beat on each other but its all in good honest fun.

[JimmyHat]

I think KGF is ‘easier’ because it is easier to corral and blockade Germany.  They really only have one way to go, East.  Whereas the Japanese, because of their fleet have more options and are harder to contain.  You could think you’re doing a KJF strategy only to have Japan build an army on the home islands and move their fleet and aircraft to Europe.

Germany cannot escape your blockade, Japan has that option.

[Advosan]

Imho KGF is overrated. If J is left unchallenged, by J3 Moscow will have to look at NOV and KAZ. By J4 the British will be at 23-21. And by J5, 2 inf 2 arm can land in ALK while J has an insane 40-42 NPC/turn.
Can the Allies KGF before J5? I m not so sure they can, G can take a lot of punishment with min 28 NPC/turn…

[Col. Ty Webb]

I don’t think you completely have to ignore Japan just because you’re doing a KGF. I wouldn’t go 100% Europe on every turn with US. Just as in real life where the Allied leaders agreed taking down Hitler was the most important, but there was still an awful lot of fighting going on in the Pacific, so you can’t let any power go unchallenged.

I don’t agree that it’s overrated, because for the simple fact that it’s the most obvious and easiest route for the Allies to take. Russia would have to be putting up one hell of a fight, the Japanese player not be paying any attention at all to US and Japan be almost completely empty for a KJF to happen.

[nutbar]

KJF takes forever and it’s so costly in precious IPCs

[Panzer V]

It depends on who your opponent(s) and allies are/is.  With inexperienced players, KGF is definately the best method.  This applies to both your allies in a multiplayer game and your axis opponents.  The better strategies for defeating the axis involve neutering Japan and are much more sophisticated and not recommended if your allies are newbies.

What amazes me is that this board is “supposedly” a forum for experienced axis & allies players.  Yet, the KGF strategy is chosen as the best.  Clearly, study of the game and numerous plays reveals that a more balanced allied strategy with a strong emphasis on curtailing Japan is the best strategy.  However, this requires good coordination with the allies and is rarely achieved in a multiplayer face to face game as there is usually a weak link on the allied side.

“Germany is the anvil and Japan is the hammer” - this is why KGF fails consistently against experienced axis players even with the revised edition which clearly favored the allies.

The fastest and most reliable method to win against experienced axis players is KJF, which is really a misnomer because you can’t ignore Germany.  But this requires excellent Allied coordination in its’ execution which is not doable with subpar allied teammates.

I consistently won as the axis playing triplea (A&A revised) with no bid and one on one.  The 1942 edition is even more favorable to the axis but I think it is balanced provided the allied player(s) is/are experienced and good at strategy.

[Hobbes]

@wawawd:

It depends on who your opponent(s) and allies are/is.  With inexperienced players, KGF is definately the best method.  This applies to both your allies in a multiplayer game and your axis opponents.  The better strategies for defeating the axis involve neutering Japan and are much more sophisticated and not recommended if your allies are newbies.

What amazes me is that this board is “supposedly” a forum for experienced axis & allies players.  Yet, the KGF strategy is chosen as the best.  Clearly, study of the game and numerous plays reveals that a more balanced allied strategy with a strong emphasis on curtailing Japan is the best strategy.  However, this requires good coordination with the allies and is rarely achieved in a multiplayer face to face game as there is usually a weak link on the allied side.

First, there’s no best strategy since every game will be different, with changes on your opponent’s moves and dice. And the Allies should really only choose which one they will go for either on the UK1 or US1 turns. Otherwise, if you try to pull out a KJF right from R1 turn it will be almost impossible to pull it off since both G/J will respond and take advantage of it.

“Germany is the anvil and Japan is the hammer” - this is why KGF fails consistently against experienced axis players even with the revised edition which clearly favored the allies.

I don’t know the quality of your opponents but this is non-sense for AA42 and more with Revised, I’m sorry. With 2 experienced players on each side each will have about 50% odds of winning with a KGF strat. This has been this way since Revised was published 6 years ago and no one of the thousands of players, both on board or using TripleA, has ever came up with a way for the Axis to win consistently against a KGF or for the Allies to win with a KFJ.

The fastest and most reliable method to win against experienced axis players is KJF, which is really a misnomer because you can’t ignore Germany.  But this requires excellent Allied coordination in its’ execution which is not doable with subpar allied teammates.

I completely agree with not ignoring Germany with a KFJ, or as I call it, with a US Pacific strat meant to eliminate Japan as a threat to Russia. But whatever strategy you choose for the Allies (or for the Axis) it will require flawless coordination.

I consistently won as the axis playing triplea (A&A revised) with no bid and one on one.  The 1942 edition is even more favorable to the axis but I think it is balanced provided the allied player(s) is/are experienced and good at strategy.

The ladder rules for Revised on TripleA call for an Axis bid of 9. That is about the same amount that is practiced on tournaments and that it is used by a majority of players. If you are constantly winning playing as Axis without any bid then either you are getting lucky rolls or your Allied opponents aren’t up to your skill or both.

[Col. Ty Webb]

Wawawd,
It’s nice to finally have an expert on axis and allies on here. Clearly, no one else on here has any expertise of the game, and are all sure you are right because you won a bunch of games as the axis on triplea. Everyone else on here has no idea what they are talking about, and the 800 million games that have been played since AA’s inception that show a KGF as the fastest, easiest Allied strategy are all wrong because you can win as the Axis all the time.

Of course you claim the easiest strategy is one that requires loads of experience at the game. How can it be the best strategy if it akes three genius Allied players to pull it off?

Clearly, you aren’t the expert you think you are.

[newpaintbrush]

Awright guys, I think we can lay off dat wawawd cat.  Prollly he/she won’t be participating in a d***-size comparing contest for at least a little while.

For my part, I’d say KGF is correct, with play against Japan IF JAPAN ALLOWS IT, which Japan probably should.

Why I say KGF is “correct”?

1.  Most cost-efficient units on attack and defense are ground units.
2.  To get ground units into battle, UK and US need naval units.
3.  To get naval units into battle against Germany or Japan, they must be built first; UK and US both have weaker navies than either Germany or Japan.
4.  UK only has one industrial complex, close to Germany.  Building another early industrial complex near Japan costs IPCs, means a delay in production, and is limited to 2-3 units per turn (anywhere from Anglo-Egypt Sudan, South Africa, Australia, or India)
5.  Japan’s starting navy/air force is bigger than Germany’s starting navy/air force
6.  Japan’s outlying islands are far away from the action in Moscow; ground forces will need to be transported in closer, which means more naval/air battles.  In contrast, near Germany, units can be offloaded into Archangel, one step away from Moscow.

What about Japan “allowing play against itself”?

If Japan mostly ignores its outlying islands and withdraws its forces west to attack Asia / India / Africa, US can build a small fleet to mess with Japan’s outlying islands.  This will mean Japan either loses IPCs, or will have to pull some units back to stop the U.S.

If Japan doesn’t ignore its outlying islands, that’s less pressure on Moscow.

Either way, the Allies can see what Japan does and act accordingly.