This was a much-loved strategy in Revised so its no surprise to see people trying it, particularly on GTO. Some of the GTO bugs favor KJF tactics. For example, in GTO it’s possible to block Jap bombardment of India by just leaving the UK sub in 35….this can really throw Japan off! I’ve seen a successful tactic where the UK bought almost nothing but subs with India in a bid to eliminate the Jap fleet early. Two more factors that favor KJF are that bombers are now 12$ and Jap transports are not military units.
While it isn’t hard to neuter Japan, it is harder to contain Germany in 42 then it was in Revised, due to the changes in the Atlantic naval situation. So overall KJF is tougher because Germany will be a beast.
The key to success is aggressive USA air buys to destroy the Jap fleet in quick time. You can’t effectively turn and face Germany till the Japanese fleet is destroyed and Japan is sea-locked. So IMO the USA1 Sink factory is not a necessity…its an option if J1 goes poorly on land…but air buys to destroy the Jap fleet are the priority.
This is the most exciting and “fun” Allied strategy to play, so this is the style I recommend and play for face to face games or in any game against non-experts. In Revised, being able to win with KJF was a great test of overall skill…and I think it will be the same in 42, though it is even harder to pull off now.
@Bunnies:
I’m reading a few comments in this thread on how US sinks Japan’s fleet at Hawaii.
Sub/cruiser/2 fighter/bomber kills the US fleet and doesn’t risk Japan’s battleships or cruisers.
then japan may lose 3 of those units and poses no threat to US territory ( as long as they build enough to defend Alaska. )… US can put all there money to a KGF scenario and a complex in Sinkiang.
My version of the polar express involves taking Alaska first.@Bunnies:
W. Canada is no longer a landing spot from Japan in the v4 map.
Polar Express, Spring 1942. Fail.
Exception - if Japan has 7+ transports, or 5+ transports and a lot of air, maybe. But I still doubt it.
So no polar express doesn’t fail
The problem is that your UK fleet usually dies in 1942 (while it didn’t in revised). Therefore, if UK builds an IC in India and then ground units there, they are losing too much time to get ground units against Germany. And with the US also spending IPC for an IC and ground units in Asia, Russia usually cannot hold long enough against a good axis player.
The problem is that your UK fleet usually dies in 1942 (while it didn’t in revised). Therefore, if UK builds an IC in India and then ground units there, they are losing too much time to get ground units against Germany. And with the US also spending IPC for an IC and ground units in Asia, Russia usually cannot hold long enough against a good axis player.
G2 builds 6 arm and 4 inf. G3 moves everything to Karelia, less 2 IPC for Russia. G5-6 Caucasus falls, and meanwhile Russia has to pull back all its units on Sinkiang/India to defend itself, leaving them open to Japan. Game over.
@The:
My version of the polar express involves taking Alaska first
So no polar express doesn’t fail
Spring 1942: Central US adjacent to Eastern Canada, allowing US E Canada units and E US units to consolidate at Central US. Western Canada cannot be reached with one transport trip from Japan. Double whammy gives US plenty of time to react.
The timing is completely different.
If you’re going to set preconditions for Polar Express, like no US ground units in US, then you should mention it, because it’s so unusual. It’s like saying Germany should take and fortify Caucasus on G1 and Japan fly 4 fighters in. Against a Bel/WR opening, or WR/UKR opening, that’s nonsense. After a failed Russian triple attack, though, with 3 ground units surviving at Ukraine, and an 8 infantry Russia build, it’s an entirely different story. In one case, it’s suicide, in another it wins the game for Axis.
The problem is that your UK fleet usually dies in 1942 (while it didn’t in revised). Therefore, if UK builds an IC in India and then ground units there, they are losing too much time to get ground units against Germany. And with the US also spending IPC for an IC and ground units in Asia, Russia usually cannot hold long enough against a good axis player.
its possible to save some of the UK fleet.
G2 builds 6 arm and 4 inf. G3 moves everything to Karelia, less 2 IPC for Russia. G5-6 Caucasus falls, and meanwhile Russia has to pull back all its units on Sinkiang/India to defend itself, leaving them open to Japan. Game over.
the allies can stall this and buy america time to threaten the axis. and russia losing karelia isnt that big if they continue to trade Ukraine and hold west russia… and with that german buy germany isnt doing much for africa which means USA and/or UK can feed troops through northern afrrica which takes another 2 away from germany. … but again this all depends on what moves the axis make if germany goes strong on land UK will be forced to go KGF along with america. it also depends on rolls during certain battles. strategy doesnt always guarantee victory if the rolls are not there. it also depends on house rules used… sometimes i forget we play with certain house rules and not direct OOB rules. for example we use 2 hit carriers.
the allies can stall this and buy america time to threaten the axis. and russia losing karelia isnt that big if they continue to trade Ukraine and hold west russia… and with that german buy germany isnt doing much for africa which means USA and/or UK can feed troops through northern afrrica which takes another 2 away from germany. … but again this all depends on what moves the axis make if germany goes strong on land UK will be forced to go KGF along with america. it also depends on rolls during certain battles. strategy doesnt always guarantee victory if the rolls are not there. it also depends on house rules used… sometimes i forget we play with certain house rules and not direct OOB rules. for example we use 2 hit carriers.
Ok if you play with 2 hit carriers it definitely explain why your UK fleet survives. In the real game (which is what is talked about in this forum) it doesn’t except if you go for Norway instead of Ukraine. But Ukraine is the usual move for the two IC opening since the plan is not to build an early fleet in Atlantic with UK (since there is no IPC to do so with the India IC).
As for Africa, how could Germany not have very good win odds there with no Atlantic fleet sending units there and him just sending two units a turn to Egy ? The best you could have as early allies units is the 6 UK/US1 units. The following reinforcements will take a while so Germany has good chances to have 9 to 11 Africa IPC for some of turns.
Germany take egypt round 1… .figure they have 2 tanks left. britain takes it back with 3 inf. fighter bomber Cruiser bombardment. and builds fleet in SZ 2. america sends a transport and units to take algieria and builds a fleet and units. if germany didnt add to the fleet in rd 1 they cant do both sides of africa … US has the money to sacrifice a transport for an early deployment into africa… and UK can join them when possible. or wait 1 round and go huge. still depends on the outcome of dice, etc. but it can be done
G2 builds 6 arm and 4 inf. G3 moves everything to Karelia, less 2 IPC for Russia. G5-6 Caucasus falls, and meanwhile Russia has to pull back all its units on Sinkiang/India to defend itself, leaving them open to Japan. Game over.
the allies can stall this and buy america time to threaten the axis. and russia losing karelia isnt that big if they continue to trade Ukraine and hold west russia…
Germany holding Karelia has a lot of advantages:
and with that german buy germany isnt doing much for africa which means USA and/or UK can feed troops through northern afrrica which takes another 2 away from germany.
The UK/US can commit troops but they face the same problem as before on Africa: they need to wipe out completely the German forces there. And the more troops/ships they commit, the less will be available for landings on Europe, which is where the big money is.
strategy doesnt always guarantee victory if the rolls are not there.
It’s more easily the other way around: rolls don’t get you a victory if the strategy is not there. The best definition of luck i know is: when opportunity meets preparation. If your opponent is not prepared to take advantage of good rolls, or, if you are not prepared to deal with unexpected results then you’ll be at a severe disadvantage.
Germany holding Karelia has a lot of advantages:
- Norway is secure (+3 IPC for G, less 3 for the UK/US)
- Russian income stays below 30, while G remains 40+
- Russia has to commit units to West Russia that won’t be used to defend the Sinkiang/India ICs from Japanese pressure. The same happens with the UK/US sending planes (either they go to WR or the ICs). That or Russia retreats from WR, dropping its income even more.
Britain can build and fight norway or use a navy to fight karelia. (this is with the assumption that Germany didnt buy a navy R1 and losses the transport and destroyer in the north.) Russia doesnt necesarliy have to defend the sinkiang complexes, this depends on japanese moves. i had said the Double IC only work depending on japans strategy & Strength in Asian land units. we could write down a mock game and assume all its moves, strengths and weaknesses and still not completely call this a failed strategy. over all id say this is still a possible strategy that could possibly be used for the win depending on the game. the double allied complex in asia could lend itself to any win/loss using strategies like KGF, KJF, KRF, KBF (dont think there is a KAF if so please let me know) does not mean the game is over cause of the attempt.
It’s more easily the other way around: rolls don’t get you a victory if the strategy is not there. The best definition of luck i know is: when opportunity meets preparation. If your opponent is not prepared to take advantage of good rolls, or, if you are not prepared to deal with unexpected results then you’ll be at a severe disadvantage.
Germany take egypt round 1… .figure they have 2 tanks left. britain takes it back with 3 inf. fighter bomber Cruiser bombardment. and builds fleet in SZ 2. america sends a transport and units to take algieria and builds a fleet and units. if germany didnt add to the fleet in rd 1 they cant do both sides of africa … US has the money to sacrifice a transport for an early deployment into africa… and UK can join them when possible. or wait 1 round and go huge. still depends on the outcome of dice, etc. but it can be done
Ok this thread is about UK building an IC in India on UK1.
If they do so the best they can have in SZ2 (if the lost against Germany in G1, which happens with good odds) is AC, 2 Fig, Sub. If your Germany player doesn’t have planes aimed to kill that, well you are seriously playing with terrible players.
It’s more easily the other way around: rolls don’t get you a victory if the strategy is not there. The best definition of luck i know is: when opportunity meets preparation. If your opponent is not prepared to take advantage of good rolls, or, if you are not prepared to deal with unexpected results then you’ll be at a severe disadvantage.
This is so beautiful definition of the charm of the game! Best I have ever read. And I think it also explains why many of us praise Hobbes as the master of the game.
On the subject: I think it is correct that UK and Russia can fight Germany on their own for a while. And if Japan screws things up and/or meets some bad luck then why not give it a try to lock it out of the sea. More succesful strategy for that IMHO could be based on different moves then the double asian ICs though:
1. Use the UK planes and the australian sub and the AC (if it survives) to kill the Japanese Indian ocean fleet. It can be done by wisely moving all or most of the initial UK air to moscow and keeping the SZ 35 fig or AC in range of SZ 34 and most of all moving the Aussie sub to the SZ 30.
2. Sink the Japanese Pacific ocean fleet with the US air force and the flleet – the best are ACs.
3. Use the original allied units to stall japan on mainland and push it out of it once the supply lines are cut for good.
4. If necessary build an UK IC on South Africa to stop Germans there.
I won 2 games using more or less this strategy for which I decided intuitively after Japan totally screwed Hawai and got some bad luck in over-ambituious moves R1. And I definitely prefer it to the double ICs strategy which i potentially – if things go bad – see as the ICs producing japanese units. And I am not willing to give the japanese equivalent of 10 inf in IPCs just for the low reason my luck went bad.
UK and Russia can definitely hold Germany alone if UK is not spending 15 IPC a turn in India. I am not saying that the US can’t go in the Pacific instead of the Atlantic. The problem is that to build 2 IC, you need Russian backup against a Japan player who knows what he is doing. And when sending that backup + building 15 IPC UK units in Asia, you will never ba able to hold any fine Germany player, except maybe if he had absolutely terrible rolls (like the battleship losing to the destroyer in SZ15 or UK winning in Egy on G1). If you are thinking about any game where Germany didn’t took Egy on G1, please don’t bring it to this post. Obviously, even terrible strategies can win in this case.
Britain can build and fight norway or use a navy to fight karelia. (this is with the assumption that Germany didnt buy a navy R1 and losses the transport and destroyer in the north.)
With what? 15 IPCs go to the IC, meaning that the UK can only build 1 carrier, as GCar has mentioned. And afterwards 15 IPC (or lower) is what it has to build anything to use in Europe. It can trade Norway or send units to Africa but definitely not contest Karelia if Germany moved a stack there.
Russia doesnt necesarliy have to defend the sinkiang complexes, this depends on japanese moves.
The move for Japan is to buy 3 transports and afterwards 8 land units each turn and go straight for India. Any other Japanese strategy is suicide, unless the US is building up on the Pacific. And if the US is going Pacific, you can forget about any UK landings on Europe, since they won’t have the money to be dropping 3 armor in India and trying to defend against the German airforce/navy.
i had said the Double IC only work depending on japans strategy & Strength in Asian land units. we could write down a mock game and assume all its moves, strengths and weaknesses and still not completely call this a failed strategy. over all id say this is still a possible strategy that could possibly be used for the win depending on the game.
I’ve faced this strat a few times in Revised and AA42 and it is a losing one. The only reason why this strat may work is if the Axis players never faced it and don’t know how to counter it. A bit like trying to do KAF with a Polar Express strategy (or Canadian Shield on Revised) or even a KBF (Sealion). The math simply doesn’t add: the 2 ICs can build a maximum of 5 units while Japan can build 8 or more units. How long do you think they last without any Russian help?
interesting debate guys … think what is happening here is the double IC’s in asia R1 for the allies is a strategy that does not work with the strategy suggested for the axis in the posts above. maybe it is only a strategy that can be used against an amateur player. Ive only ever played with the people in my group and we have only played on the original, Revised and now spring 42. must admit i would like to play a game with a few of you based on what I read in these forums. interesting debate guys
interesting debate guys … think what is happening here is the double IC’s in asia R1 for the allies is a strategy that does not work with the strategy suggested for the axis in the posts above. maybe it is only a strategy that can be used against an amateur player. Ive only ever played with the people in my group and we have only played on the original, Revised and now spring 42. must admit i would like to play a game with a few of you based on what I read in these forums. interesting debate guys
Please do play. Triple A is really easy to install and most of the people discussing the topic here you can find there.
interesting debate guys … think what is happening here is the double IC’s in asia R1 for the allies is a strategy that does not work with the strategy suggested for the axis in the posts above. maybe it is only a strategy that can be used against an amateur player. Ive only ever played with the people in my group and we have only played on the original, Revised and now spring 42. must admit i would like to play a game with a few of you based on what I read in these forums. interesting debate guys
I don’t think the book is closed on the India IC in 42 (I don’t believe in the Sink factory, unless Japan got diced up on the mainland J1). In Revised strategy, the naysayers dissed the India IC early and often yet people continue to play the IIC in Revised and rack up wins doing so. We are all aware Japan is easier to neuter in 42 than it was in Revised, so why write off aggressive KJF tactics? Sure, there are tons of IPCs in Europe but there’s also a ton of IPCs in Asia.
Bear in mind, it takes alot of practice and skill to play this strategy correctly and it is unlikely the players developing it have already perfected their game. 2nd, most of the people playing KJF are playing dice games, and in a dice KJF game, just one bad roll for Japan can totally upset the cart. If Allies are putting up Asia ICs, then they are in position to turn bad rolls for Japan into economic advantages for the Allies. Finally, if Allies are playing correctly, then just one fleet mistake by Japan can be fatal to Axis. So given these factors you can probably understand why people play KJF on venues like GTO where most of the players are not experts. In a live game, this is a faster Allies win than a KGF and more fun to play.
I’ve faced the guy GCar refereed to who built the UK1 Persia/India factories and I’m 1-1 against him. Even with the questionable Persia factory buy, he was extremely tough to beat, and he even gave me a bid as Axis in both matches. I give the guy kudos…he’s trying some unorthodox stuff and uncovering a new strat. Once he realizes Axis shouldn’t be getting a bid he’ll be even tougher.
I agree that in a low luck expert game it’s likely a suboptimal strategy, but let’s face it, you can say the same thing about any strategy that isn’t a pure KGF, including a USA Pac push. Who is to say that a USA push + India IC is a worse strategy than a USA Pac push plus UK focusing in Europe? At least with the India IC, you have the opportunity to limit Japan’s income on the mainland. Any time the Allies divert significant resources to Japan, Germany can counter by building tanks and pushing WR/Cau. The question is whether the Axis player is skilled enough to hold onto Japan’s fleet and mainland bases long enough for Germany to pull out the win.
For the India strategy I can admit that it is playable, if only to hold Japan and not followed with a KJF. Russia can’t hold Germany long enough for allies to get to Japan EXCEPT if Germany had a terrible turn 1 and didn’t took Egy. BUT, I think that pretty much any axis strategy (well some more then usual) can win if Germany loses in Egy on turn 1.
Another viable strategy to hold Japan is to build a US Pacific fleet. Those two strategies to hold Japan + classical KGF are in my opinion are the only viable strategies against an axis player who as any idea of what he is doing (aka, going for Russia and Africa as fast as possible).
Re: India/Sinkiang ICs.
Question: Kwangtung transport. If alive, 4 inf plus air to hit India on J1. If not alive, then UK down a cruiser, fighter, or AC in the area. No other possibilities.
If Kwangtung trannie alive, B-ship carrier plus air easily kills 1 AC 1 carrier 1 cruiser. More conservative Japan uses 2 trannies for 6 units on India, next turn East Indies brings attack on India to 8 ground plus air.
If Kwangtung trannie not alive, you still see 6 ground plus air to India on J2, and Jap kills UK fleet in area anyways, without as much air required.
Granted, is VERY easy to defend India first few turns. But point is not simply defense of India, must break Japan. Subsequent turns see buildup of inf at French Indochina and China. If Sinkiang or India attacks, Japan easy to defend. If not attack, Japan continues inf buildup plus tanks, and funnels units to north to gain easy territory. Almost same result for Axis.
If India is strong, Africa MUST be weak, so Germany claims.
Now second node is US goes ATL, or goes Pacific, or split.
If ATL, then Japan unstoppable, cracks one IC then other. No other possibilities with good Jap player; Allied d at Sinkiang and India invariably cost-effective but slow infantry; Germany applies pressure from east, forces three-front defense for Moscow at Sinkiang, India, Moscow/Caucasus front. Not good for Russia. One will fall.
if PAC then Germany controls Africa. It takes a long time for UK to build enough fleet solo to challenge German superiority, particularly Mediterranean. US starts grabbing islands from Japan, but it takes a while; Japan drops infantry to Asia and ICs at French Indochina, then sub/air/fleet stalls US. But key here is Germany is strong, and that Japan can race to hit India/Sinkiang ICs before US fleet reaches. US logistic line is long. Japan’s is short.
if SPLIT then US takes longer to reach key islands at Japan. Possibly too long, giving Japan time to crack ICs.
