When should the Allies try a KJF?

[Hobbes]

The propose of the poll is to see what people consider as requirements for a successful KJF, based on actual experience. I’m starting to write an strategy article on when to perform a KJF so this will be very useful data. :)

There most likely there are more options/conditions available, just list them here and I’ll add them to the poll. You may choose up to 6 options.

[newpaintbrush]

To me, it’s a question of which Axis power is more vulnerable.  I consider Germany to be much more vulnerable considering its location which makes it possible for UK, US, and Russia to gang up on it.

Japan shouldn’t have a hard time controlling the Asian coast in any event because of the logistics problems that Russia will have in getting units to the coast, and the problems UK will have in getting any kind of force into the area.  US can’t prevent Japan from controlling the Asian coast for a while.

So the only thing that makes it possible to KJF is Japan somehow making itself more vulnerable, which to me means the loss of at least two battleships and/or carriers, or a battleship/carrier and three or four air minimum.

I’ve seen you implement KJF quite well in some games I’ve looked in on, Hobbes, but I have yet to see your opponents take the best line.  They don’t fly German fighters to the Japanese fleet, and they typically set up inefficiently in Asia.  In the following, I’m leaving out pretty much anything not immediately relevant, like the UK2 air attack on the German battleship/transport.

Let’s say “typical” game, and stipulate Germany builds 5 infantry 5 tanks or 1 air unit and mix of ground, but that Germany does NOT build a carrier.  We’ll also say that Germany ends its turn either in control of Anglo-Egypt with at least 1 tank, or has 6 ground units and 1 fighter in Libya.

On UK’s turn, it can counter Anglo-Egypt with good odds of success, or it can attack French Indochina; depending on its choice, it may also put a fighter on Buryatia to join 6 Russian infantry.

Say Japan builds 3 transports 1 destroyer on J1.  I consider there are two worst case scenarios.

1.  Russia has 6 infantry in Buryatia, UK controls French Indochina, China has UK fighter.  UK sub at New Guinea.  UK bomber at Yakut.
2.  Russia has 6 infantry and 1 UK fighter in Buryatia.  UK sub at New Guinea.  UK bomber at Yakut.

So let’s say Japan is anticipating a KGF.  Let’s also say Germany is poised to take control of Anglo-Egypt and Trans-Jordan on G2 opening the Suez Canal for the Japanese battleship and carrier that start at East Indies to reinforce on J2.  That means on J1 Japan will want to send its battleship and carrier west, leaving the French Indochina sea zone unprotected.

There are two Japanese responses, both going with the general-purpose build of 3 transports 1 destroyer.  Both hit China with two or more fighters plus infantry, minimum, and both leave a battleship and carrier in the sea zone east of Japan at the end of J1.

1.  Keep all transports alive - Hit Buryatia with 3 infantry 1 tank 3 fighter 1 bomber 1 battleship support shot and 1 cruiser support shot.  (Possibly a fourth fighter if French Indochina was not hit).  Japan can attack the Hawaiian Islands fleet with a single Japanese sub.

2.  Sacrifice a transport - Hit Pearl Harbor, leave Buryatia alone.  Transport ground units to Kwangtung or Manchuria along with fighters to hold it against Allied attack.  The Jap transport can get whacked by the UK bomber.  Or Japan can keep its transport and just pull the infantry off Wake.

At the beginning of J1, Japan controls 6 ground on Japan, 1 on Wake, 1 on Okinawa, 2 on Phillipines, total 10.  A transport takes 2 off, leaving 8.  That leaves 8 units and 4 transports for the beginning of J2.  Worst case scenario, Wake and Okinawa both still have 1 infantry, meaning 2 of those transports (at least) should end J2 in the sea zone east of Japan, having dropped to Buryatia.  J2 can hit Buryatia with about 7 infantry 1 artillery 2 fighters 1 bomber absolute minimum; probably more.  But before going into the J2 moves, we have G2.

Germany sees the US fleet build in Pacific, so should send its Libya fighter (at least) east towards Japan to threaten US destroyer blocks.

Now on J2, Japan sees the Pac fleet build.  It transports units to Asia based on its J1 build, and moves the East Indies battleship and carrier to the French Indochina sea zone.  Japan should control both the French Indochina sea zone and the sea zone east of Japan without any problem.

If Allies stacked Buryatia, Japan smashes Buryatia and kills a lot of Allied air, which puts the Japs considerably up.  It is possible for the Allies to super stack Buryatia, but Germany can go really wild if Russia’s draining that much from its western front.

If Allies didn’t stack Buryatia, Japan hits Buryatia and sends 1-2 transport to French Indochina.

Japan’s J2 build should change based on the board situation, ideally setting up its J3 moves.  J1 should have 27 IPCs minimum income (if Japan lost New Guinea and Borneo but gained China); since Japan didn’t spend 1 IPC on J1, it has 28 IPCs at the start of J2.

The planned transport routes for J2 are 2 transport to French Indochina, 2 transports to sea zone east of Japan (Buryatia).  On J3, one of the French Indochina transports can pick up from East Indies, so that leaves Japan 6 ground units short.  Japan can easily purchase 6 infantry with 18 IPCs, leaving 10-16 more IPCs to purchase subs and/or destroyers with, and still maintaining 8 ground to Europe (2 from East Indies, 6 from Japan).  J4+ should have Japan trying to shuttle 4-6 ground units a turn into Asia, with excess transports hitting points in Africa or retaking territory in the Pacific.  If Russia marches to the coast, Japan beats the hell out of them with infantry and fighters and Germany goes all PAC-MAN nom nom nom

–

All the above isn’t to say that KJF doesn’t work.  But it shouldn’t be a cakewalk.

[newpaintbrush]

Japan: not attacking SZ52 or failing to do so

:|

[Hobbes]

@Bunnies:

To me, it’s a question of which Axis power is more vulnerable.  I consider Germany to be much more vulnerable considering its location which makes it possible for UK, US, and Russia to gang up on it.

Japan shouldn’t have a hard time controlling the Asian coast in any event because of the logistics problems that Russia will have in getting units to the coast, and the problems UK will have in getting any kind of force into the area.  US can’t prevent Japan from controlling the Asian coast for a while.

So the only thing that makes it possible to KJF is Japan somehow making itself more vulnerable, which to me means the loss of at least two battleships and/or carriers, or a battleship/carrier and three or four air minimum.

I disagree with the loss of Japanese capital ships - it does surely help but to me the key issue is their location at the beginning of US2. And as for air, 1 is enough for the Allies.

I’ve seen you implement KJF quite well in some games I’ve looked in on, Hobbes, but I have yet to see your opponents take the best line.  They don’t fly German fighters to the Japanese fleet, and they typically set up inefficiently in Asia.  In the following, I’m leaving out pretty much anything not immediately relevant, like the UK2 air attack on the German battleship/transport.

Let’s say “typical” game, and stipulate Germany builds 5 infantry 5 tanks or 1 air unit and mix of ground, but that Germany does NOT build a carrier.  We’ll also say that Germany ends its turn either in control of Anglo-Egypt with at least 1 tank, or has 6 ground units and 1 fighter in Libya.

On UK’s turn, it can counter Anglo-Egypt with good odds of success, or it can attack French Indochina; depending on its choice, it may also put a fighter on Buryatia to join 6 Russian infantry.

Say Japan builds 3 transports 1 destroyer on J1.  I consider there are two worst case scenarios.

1.  Russia has 6 infantry in Buryatia, UK controls French Indochina, China has UK fighter.  UK sub at New Guinea.  UK bomber at Yakut.
2.  Russia has 6 infantry and 1 UK fighter in Buryatia.  UK sub at New Guinea.  UK bomber at Yakut.

So let’s say Japan is anticipating a KGF.

With the 1st option? As Japan I’d consider a KFJ being put into place. But that’s just me :)

Let’s also say Germany is poised to take control of Anglo-Egypt and Trans-Jordan on G2 opening the Suez Canal for the Japanese battleship and carrier that start at East Indies to reinforce on J2.  That means on J1 Japan will want to send its battleship and carrier west, leaving the French Indochina sea zone unprotected.

There are two Japanese responses, both going with the general-purpose build of 3 transports 1 destroyer.   Both hit China with two or more fighters plus infantry, minimum, and both leave a battleship and carrier in the sea zone east of Japan at the end of J1.

1.  Keep all transports alive - Hit Buryatia with 3 infantry 1 tank 3 fighter 1 bomber 1 battleship support shot and 1 cruiser support shot.  (Possibly a fourth fighter if French Indochina was not hit).  Japan can attack the Hawaiian Islands fleet with a single Japanese sub.

2.  Sacrifice a transport - Hit Pearl Harbor, leave Buryatia alone.  Transport ground units to Kwangtung or Manchuria along with fighters to hold it against Allied attack.  The Jap transport can get whacked by the UK bomber.  Or Japan can keep its transport and just pull the infantry off Wake.

At the beginning of J1, Japan controls 6 ground on Japan, 1 on Wake, 1 on Okinawa, 2 on Phillipines, total 10.  A transport takes 2 off, leaving 8.  That leaves 8 units and 4 transports for the beginning of J2.  Worst case scenario, Wake and Okinawa both still have 1 infantry, meaning 2 of those transports (at least) should end J2 in the sea zone east of Japan, having dropped to Buryatia.  J2 can hit Buryatia with about 7 infantry 1 artillery 2 fighters 1 bomber absolute minimum; probably more.  But before going into the J2 moves, we have G2.

Germany sees the US fleet build in Pacific, so should send its Libya fighter (at least) east towards Japan to threaten US destroyer blocks.

Now on J2, Japan sees the Pac fleet build.  It transports units to Asia based on its J1 build, and moves the East Indies battleship and carrier to the French Indochina sea zone.  Japan should control both the French Indochina sea zone and the sea zone east of Japan without any problem.

The key move is here - to prevent the US from landing on Solomon on US2 Japan needs to move the battleship/carrier to SZ37 on J2 OR have 6 fighters, 1 bomber and the sub in range to hit SZ47 on J3.

If Allies stacked Buryatia, Japan smashes Buryatia and kills a lot of Allied air, which puts the Japs considerably up.  It is possible for the Allies to super stack Buryatia, but Germany can go really wild if Russia’s draining that much from its western front.

If Allies didn’t stack Buryatia, Japan hits Buryatia and sends 1-2 transport to French Indochina.

Japan’s J2 build should change based on the board situation, ideally setting up its J3 moves.  J1 should have 27 IPCs minimum income (if Japan lost New Guinea and Borneo but gained China); since Japan didn’t spend 1 IPC on J1, it has 28 IPCs at the start of J2.

The planned transport routes for J2 are 2 transport to French Indochina, 2 transports to sea zone east of Japan (Buryatia).  On J3, one of the French Indochina transports can pick up from East Indies, so that leaves Japan 6 ground units short.  Japan can easily purchase 6 infantry with 18 IPCs, leaving 10-16 more IPCs to purchase subs and/or destroyers with, and still maintaining 8 ground to Europe (2 from East Indies, 6 from Japan).  J4+ should have Japan trying to shuttle 4-6 ground units a turn into Asia, with excess transports hitting points in Africa or retaking territory in the Pacific.  If Russia marches to the coast, Japan beats the hell out of them with infantry and fighters and Germany goes all PAC-MAN nom nom nom

–

All the above isn’t to say that KJF doesn’t work.  But it shouldn’t be a cakewalk.

What if a KFJ can be successful for the Allies even Russia falls to the Germans?

[Hobbes]

A few interesting facts for my last point.

Moscow falls. Russia still controls Kazakh, Novo and Evenki but they are effectively worth 0.
When Germany conquers Russia and all its European territories it will have her production boosted to 54 IPC, assuming Germany has been cleared out of Africa by the UK/US.
Assuming the loss of India to Japan but with control of Africa, the UK should earn at least 27 IPC, plus whatever it can take from Germany (Algeria, Libya, Norway).
Japan’s fleet has been sunk and the 3 big islands conquered by the US. Japan retains control of the Chinese and Soviet territories and India, with 29 IPCs.
US has 49 IPCs. At this point the income slightly favors the Axis (83 to 76) but if the Allies can secure the Asian mainland and Africa while keeping Japan confined then they will be outproducing the Axis despite losing Russia.
Can the Allies win then?

[newpaintbrush]

1.  Poll has “Japan: not attacking SZ52 or failing to do so” - should be “Japan:  not attacking SZ52 or failing at SZ52”
2.  Why “KFJ” not “KJF”?  Does KFJ mean something different to KJF?  Kentucky Fried Jalapenos, maybe?

I disagree with the loss of Japanese capital ships - it does surely help but to me the key issue is their location at the beginning of US2. And as for air, 1 is enough for the Allies.

(For readers, Hobbes is referring to the Japanese navy position at the end of J2; US’s goal is to move to Solomon Islands at end of US2.)
@Hobbes:  I consider the decision on whether to go KJF or KGF (Kill Japan First or Kill Germany First) made on the US1 unit placement phase, not the beginning of US2.  I’m guessing your decision to go KJF or KGF is made on the unit purchase phase of US2.  That is, that you’re placing US fleet in Pacific on US1 regardless; if you go KGF, you put transports in Eastern US and use the British to produce covering fleet; if you go KJF, you continue the unit buildup in Western US.

With the 1st option? (edit - that is, Russia has 6 infantry in Buryatia, UK controls French Indochina, China has UK fighter.  UK sub at New Guinea.  UK bomber at Yakut. /edit) As Japan I’d consider a KFJ being put into place. But that’s just me

Yes, probably there is something fishy going on with UK not covering Africa.  But maybe the Allies player just considers pressure on the Jap coast compensation.  Same for Russian units in India and Sinkiang.  Yes, it’s weird, and the Allies are going to lose something, but not as much as if Japanese assumes a KJF, builds a bunch of subs, then the Allies shift back to KGF position.

What if a KFJ can be successful for the Allies even Russia falls to the Germans?

Your picture of KFJ (KJF?) is quite different to mine.  I think we agree that there’s a decent chance that Moscow is captured by Germany before Tokyo.  For the rest -

Moscow falls. Russia still controls Kazakh, Novo and Evenki but they are effectively worth 0.
When Germany conquers Russia and all its European territories it will have her production boosted to 54 IPC, assuming Germany has been cleared out of Africa by the UK/US.
Assuming the loss of India to Japan but with control of Africa, the UK should earn at least 27 IPC, plus whatever it can take from Germany (Algeria, Libya, Norway).
Japan’s fleet has been sunk and the 3 big islands conquered by the US. Japan retains control of the Chinese and Soviet territories and India, with 29 IPCs.
US has 49 IPCs. At this point the income slightly favors the Axis (83 to 76) but if the Allies can secure the Asian mainland and Africa while keeping Japan confined then they will be outproducing the Axis despite losing Russia.
Can the Allies win then?

The Allies already won in that case, because the US economy powers the ICs on Borneo and East Indies.  Japan can’t make a comeback because it has a crappy economy and has to race US.  Germany needs navy and air to kick the US off, but to have any chance, Germany has to control the Suez, and if the Allies are starting in control of the Suez, the Allies can maintain control pretty easily, or at LEAST prevent Germany from starting a turn in control of it, which is all that is needed.

(Germany needs the Suez because it’s too hard for Germany to try to race the US economy in the Pacific without German submarines.  If Germany builds a chunk of air, it has to race the US’s already gigantic fleet, which means no chance.  Germany doesn’t control any industrial complexes that can produce on the Asian coast, so it can only use Caucasus and Southern Europe to pump out navy, but those units take forever to get around Africa - the Axis need control of the Suez to push German subs through.  But if the Germans don’t already have control of the Suez, the US can probably hit one or the other of TransJordan and Anglo-Egypt; Japan can’t stop US from doing so because the Jap fleet is dead, and US should have enough to stop any German airforce (or at least to inflict big casualties which is almost the same thing).

Germany COULD make a play for London by building a carrier and six transports at Berlin, but that’s pretty much assuming UK hasn’t seen that coming, which it should see coming a mile off; even then, that plan gets shot down if UK has a good air force.  (It CAN work for Germany sometimes.  But I’d guess usually not)

The alternative is if Germany has a chunk of tanks to kill all Allies right up to the Asian coast.  But even then, with US controlling the Pacific seas, US has a definite advantage in logistics.  And anyways, what the heck were Russia and UK doing all that time?  Really Germany shouldn’t have that easy a time.

The trick is GETTING to that point with the Allies.

1.  Under no conditions should Japan lose its fleet or most of its air force.
2.  If the Allies went KJF, Germany should control most of Africa.

[newpaintbrush]

Last post I commented Germany should control most of Africa.  I should amend that to say Germany could potentially control most of Africa in a KJF where it probably won’t have any of it in a KGF.  But in any event, the Axis shouldn’t neglect Africa.

[jiman79]

I’m looking forward to that strategy article Hobbes. I nearly always start a game with the intent of doing a KJF, but early round dice usually makes me switch towards a traditional KGF instead.
I find some of your voting options a bit difficult to say yes or no to, so I’ll try to elaborate instead:
USSR: 6 INF on Buryatia
Stacking bury along with a FIC attack puts some pressure on the Japanese. But I would not call it a requirement. Japan can usually only attack 2 countries on the asian mainland - China should be on, and Bury the other. But if Japan only has 7 ground units, these attacks require a lot of support from air, which means that Japan probably skips sz52.

USSR: sinking the Med fleet on round
No I would consider this a job for the UK.

_USSR: Losing less units than average on R1 attacks _
Yes, a strong USSR is needed because it will have to stand alone against Germany for some rounds. If USSR1 goes bad I would aim for a strategy with british+US atlantic fleet and north passage shuttling of troops.

USSR: moving INF to Sinkiang
I would do this, to retake China, if I have intentions of a Sinkiang IC.

USSR: attacking Norway to prevent sinking of SZ2
No – this I consider a KGF move. Doing this is both risky and costly for the USSR in the head to head battle against Germany. Germany is likely to hit and take West Russia on G1.

_Germany: failing attack on Egypt _
That would certainly help, I would say that Germany must not do to well in Egypt. 1 armor left is ok. If Germany sweeps Africa while the US fool around in the pacific, USSR will have a hard time.

Germany: heavy ground losses on G1
Good yes, requirement no.

Germany: not stacking Karelia or Ukraine on G1
Difficult one to answer – I assume USSR bought 3inf 3 arm – so stacking Karelia or Ukraine could mean severe German losses to a USSR counter or strafe.

_Germany: not attacking West Russia on G1 _
A successful attack on West Russia makes it difficult to perform a KJF, since USSR can’t trade belo and Karelia next round, but this depends on what Germany then did not do, and which losses they suffered. Regardless I would probably go for a KGF in this scenario.

_Germany: naval purchase on G1 _
That certainly would be advantageous for a KJF in my opinion, since it should take some pressure of Russia. But not a requirement.

_UK: attacking Indochina and killing the J fighter _
This I would consider a requirement, at least to take out the infantry, then a retreat could be considered. But always a risky battle

_UK: retaking Egypt from the Germans _
Well you probably can’t do both this and FIC.
Or it will get risky, with Persia inf and trans Jordan inf + cruiser shot in Egypt and 3 inf + fig against 2 inf+fig in FIC.

_UK: conquering Borneo and/or New Guinea _
Again you can’t do both Borneo and FIC

_UK: fleet at SZ2 survival _
A perfect KGF scenario for the allies

UK: landing the Indian fighter on Bur or China
Bury is a nice option, but this would also mean that the fig can’t be used in UK1 combat (only to take out the free Japanese transport, which always should be done by the UK.

_UK: building IC on India _
You can probably do a KJF with only US naval pressure and then leaving UK and USSR to contain Germany. But a “pure” KJF IMO must involve Asian ICs. Preferably in India and Sinkiang – but not necessarily UK1. Perhaps it is doable to apply the pressure from South Africa or Australia?

_Japan: attacking Buryatia _
Attacking a stacked Bury would be a good Japanes move IMO.

Japan: loss of a capital ship (battleship/carrier) on J1  2 (7.4%)
Assuming the Japanese player knows how to defend against a US pacific aggression, I would consider it a requirement that Japan not has to good a first round. Whether it suffers air or a capital ship or minor ship losses of course depends on, the battles chosen and losses inflicted on the allies (China, Bury, SZ52, UK ships)

_Japan: loss of 1 or more fighters _
See above

_Japan: minor naval losses (cruiser, sub) _
See above

_Japan: defeat on China attack _
A key battle. A defeat or marginal victory would make a US round 1 Sinkiang IC viable. A strong Japanese victory (say 3 inf surviving) makes a KJF very difficult.

_Japan: not sinking the US fleet at SZ52 _
If by not sinking you mean losing a battle in sz52, this would be a huge asset for a KJF strategy – if it is by not attacking, well then US still has to beat the Japanese navy at some point. Not a requirement in my opinion.

_US: attacking SZ60 on US1 _
Depends…

_US: building IC on Sinkiang/China _
A viable option (in Sinkiang), but only relevant if Japan did not do to well in China.

_US: counterattack on SZ52 _
Another good option, depending on which units are there.

_US: full build up of the Pacific fleet _
Yes in order to pressure Japan, Allies need to threaten its navy and thereby slowing its march in the Asian mainland.

_US: retreating all units from Atlantic to Pac _
A possibility, but a sacrificial landing in Algeria is also an option in order to help secure Africa and cover the back of an India IC.

_US: landing on Algeria _
See above.

US: reinforcing the UK fleet with cruiser and fighter(s)
Which UK fleet?  If UK goes for a fleet build, which is not a bad idea to keep some German units away from the eastern front, then the US might as well support it. But if Germany made a classic “fortress of Europe” opening then UK can only put a fleet in sz8 if it spends all its 30 ipc on navy (AC+2dstr) and then we are probably not talking KJF anymore, but a balanced scenario with allies pressuring both Germany and Japan from the seaside only.

[newpaintbrush]

IMO there are two flavors of KJF that have a shot of working.  Both require the Allies to chase the Japanese navy out of the Pacific.

1.  UK builds Atlantic fleet and along with Russia stalls Germany in Europe.  US builds Pacific fleet.  Probably Germany controls Africa.

2.  UK builds India IC UK1.  US builds Pac fleet.  Germany has a very strong early open against Russia, as Russia needs to bleed off units to India.  Probably Germany controls Africa.  Most likely Moscow is horribly weak and falls early, but the Allied KJF is much much faster too.

I do not think a Sinkiang IC is ever “correct”.  Only the US has enough power and the position to chase off the Jap fleet; US needs every single IPC it can spend to build its Pacific fleet.  Spending 15 IPCs on an IC then spending additional IPCs every turn slows US’s progress in the Pacific.

Even if India has an IC and is producing navy there, US still can’t afford a Sinkiang IC.  It’s an additional point the Allies have to protect, either for Japan early or for Germany later.  Once the Axis capture it, it’s isolated from Moscow and the coast by buffer zones so the Allies can’t easily recapture it.

I think the best play for UK’s India carrier in Africa is UK carrier southeast of Africa on UK1, regardless. (edit - IF the Allies are going KJF, that is)

[jiman79]

I agree with the two different KJF scenarios Bunnies puts up. These are very different strategies depending on, where UK puts its focus.

Always hiding the UK carrier behind Madagascar on UK1 - this would mean you use the cruiser for the J transporter and do not use the cruiser bombardment in the amphibious assault on Egypt/FIC/Borneo?

[newpaintbrush]

@jiman79:

Always hiding the UK carrier behind Madagascar on UK1 - this would mean you use the cruiser for the J transporter and do not use the cruiser bombardment in the amphibious assault on Egypt/FIC/Borneo?

@Bunnies:

I think the best play for UK’s India carrier in Africa is UK carrier southeast of Africa on UK1, regardless.

I edited that to specify that means if the Allies go KJF.

It all depends on the position at the beginning of UK’s turn.  It is possible that the UK cruiser ends up doing neither, or that UK ends up putting the beginning of a KGF into play.  Whether Allies go KGF or KJF isn’t really decided until the unit placement phase on US1 in my opinion.

[Hobbes]

@jiman79:

I’m looking forward to that strategy article Hobbes. I nearly always start a game with the intent of doing a KJF, but early round dice usually makes me switch towards a traditional KGF instead.
I find some of your voting options a bit difficult to say yes or no to, so I’ll try to elaborate instead:
USSR: 6 INF on Buryatia
Stacking bury along with a FIC attack puts some pressure on the Japanese. But I would not call it a requirement. Japan can usually only attack 2 countries on the asian mainland - China should be on, and Bury the other. But if Japan only has 7 ground units, these attacks require a lot of support from air, which means that Japan probably skips sz52.

If you’re going for Indochina then the answer is definitely yes to that question, agreed. I’m usually a fan of stacking Buryatia because of the pressure it places on the Japanese and how it forces them to react, including skipping SZ52.

_USSR: Losing less units than average on R1 attacks  _
Yes, a strong USSR is needed because it will have to stand alone against Germany for some rounds. If USSR1 goes bad I would aim for a strategy with british+US atlantic fleet and north passage shuttling of troops.

Also a key factor, imho.

_Germany: failing attack on Egypt  _
That would certainly help, I would say that Germany must not do to well in Egypt. 1 armor left is ok. If Germany sweeps Africa while the US fool around in the pacific, USSR will have a hard time.

If it fails I think it is a big incentive for KJF.

Germany: heavy ground losses on G1
Good yes, requirement no.

Germany: not stacking Karelia or Ukraine on G1
Difficult one to answer � I assume USSR bought 3inf 3 arm � so stacking Karelia or Ukraine could mean severe German losses to a USSR counter or strafe.

Yeah, this is a bit a dilemma. Even if that USSR buy the Germans may still be able to stack Karelia. Ukraine really depends on Russian attacks (another factor - which ones favor more KJF? Ukraine and WRus? just WRus?)

_Germany: not attacking West Russia on G1  _
A successful attack on West Russia makes it difficult to perform a KJF, since USSR can�t trade belo and Karelia next round, but this depends on what Germany then did not do, and which losses they suffered. Regardless I would probably go for a KGF in this scenario.

To me this is a definite no to KJF.

_UK: attacking Indochina and killing the J fighter  _
This I would consider a requirement, at least to take out the infantry, then a retreat could be considered. But always a risky battle

_UK: retaking Egypt from the Germans  _
Well you probably can�t do both this and FIC.
Or it will get risky, with Persia inf and trans Jordan inf + cruiser shot in Egypt and 3 inf + fig against 2 inf+fig in FIC.

This is the key issue to me right now - it seems all really depends on the UK move, because without that attack Japan isn’t pressured enough at the beginning. But not attacking Egypt means that you’ll be conceding Africa to the Germans.

_UK: conquering Borneo and/or New Guinea  _
Again you can�t do both Borneo and FIC

FIC is definitely more important - also because that move sets a Japanese landing on Borneo on rounds 1-2, which would stop a US landing on Solomon on US2.

_UK: fleet at SZ2 survival  _
A perfect KGF scenario for the allies

Or KJF as well.

_UK: building IC on India  _
You can probably do a KJF with only US naval pressure and then leaving UK and USSR to contain Germany. But a �pure� KJF IMO must involve Asian ICs. Preferably in India and Sinkiang � but not necessarily UK1. Perhaps it is doable to apply the pressure from South Africa or Australia?

South Africa and Australia are a waste of IPCs for an IC, imo. Putting 1 on India on UK1, even with a FIC assault is too risky. Japan can mount an assault on it on J3 and the US will still be too far away so it will have to be the Russians helping out.

_Japan: defeat on China attack  _
A key battle. A defeat or marginal victory would make a US round 1 Sinkiang IC viable. A strong Japanese victory (say 3 inf surviving) makes a KJF very difficult.

US: reinforcing the UK fleet with cruiser and fighter(s)
Which UK fleet?  If UK goes for a fleet build, which is not a bad idea to keep some German units away from the eastern front, then the US might as well support it. But if Germany made a classic �fortress of Europe� opening then UK can only put a fleet in sz8 if it spends all its 30 ipc on navy (AC+2dstr) and then we are probably not talking KJF anymore, but a balanced scenario with allies pressuring both Germany and Japan from the seaside only.

Sorry, on this case I mean SZ8 as you mentioned.

[jiman79]

@Hobbes:

_Germany: failing attack on Egypt  _
That would certainly help, I would say that Germany must not do to well in Egypt. 1 armor left is ok. If Germany sweeps Africa while the US fool around in the pacific, USSR will have a hard time.

If it fails I think it is a big incentive for KJF.

_UK: attacking Indochina and killing the J fighter  _
This I would consider a requirement, at least to take out the infantry, then a retreat could be considered. But always a risky battle

_UK: retaking Egypt from the Germans  _
Well you probably can�t do both this and FIC.
Or it will get risky, with Persia inf and trans Jordan inf + cruiser shot in Egypt and 3 inf + fig against 2 inf+fig in FIC.

This is the key issue to me right now - it seems all really depends on the UK move, because without that attack Japan isn’t pressured enough at the beginning. But not attacking Egypt means that you’ll be conceding Africa to the Germans.

So to boil it down, I think we can agree on Egypt+FIC being the key battles. Along with USSR doing well on USSR1+G1.

But to be honest I have a hard time finding scenarios, where a KJF is preferable to a KGF.
I am looking forward to your strategy paper.

I am currently doing some calculations and interpretations on the UK India fleet options UK1. I will probably post during the weekend.

[Hobbes]

Bunnies tried his KJF on me yesterday, using the Indian IC. He managed to kick the Japanese out of Asia and to sink their fleet, but Russia falls on round 5 (or would have, if I hadn’t lost a 94% battle). He then start popping UK and US ICs on Asia and since Germany decided to have a Pacific fleet (based on the assumption that Russia would fall on round 5) the Allies outproduced the Axis.

It was a fun game but I still don’t believe the Indian IC because Bunnies had to use a lot of Russian units to defend it/attack the Japs on FIC and I could have made things harder for the Allies with Japan on Asia. The end result will be Caucasus falling on round 4 then Russia on 5/6. After that the Germans simply have to go after India. Unless the Germans botch up their attack on Russia.

I’m still looking at the different options listed above and I’m actually trying to create some sort of a flowchart for round 1 to help the Allies determine if they should go KJF or not.

[newpaintbrush]

@Hobbes:

Bunnies tried his KJF on me yesterday, using the Indian IC. He managed to kick the Japanese out of Asia and to sink their fleet, but Russia falls on round 5 (or would have, if I hadn’t lost a 94% battle). He then start popping UK and US ICs on Asia and since Germany decided to have a Pacific fleet (based on the assumption that Russia would fall on round 5) the Allies outproduced the Axis.

It was a fun game but I still don’t believe the Indian IC because Bunnies had to use a lot of Russian units to defend it/attack the Japs on FIC and I could have made things harder for the Allies with Japan on Asia. The end result will be Caucasus falling on round 4 then Russia on 5/6. After that the Germans simply have to go after India. Unless the Germans botch up their attack on Russia.

I’m still looking at the different options listed above and I’m actually trying to create some sort of a flowchart for round 1 to help the Allies determine if they should go KJF or not.

I don’t feel that I have a good grasp on the Allies.  For KGF, I get the feeling that I’m missing some key line of play, and I’m pretty awful at KJF, because I’ve never practiced or developed my KJF games.  So when Hobbes says there were weak points to the KJF play that I did, he’s perfectly correct in terms of what he had to face.  But I think it’s possible that if I developed the lines of play that KJF might be much stronger.

On the other hand, as Hobbes wrote, he could have done things differently as well.  Besides which, Hobbes did fail the high percentage attack on Moscow, and although he didn’t mention it, a lot of small important battles went my way as well, which is very important.  So perhaps KJF IS a doomed line of play after all.  I can’t say a very luck-sacky game speaks well to the validity of a strategy.  But we’ll see.

A few comments -

One thing I’ve always maintained is that protecting a UK IC on India means giving up Moscow.  Hobbes comments that Russia falls, but I think that’s a foregone conclusion with an India IC.  (The idea of the India IC is to push the clock forwards on the US KJF plan to the degree that the Allies can afford to let Moscow fall.  But it is quite possible the Germany grabs Moscow earlier than the Allies can afford, which means eight German tanks racing towards India a turn.)

In game, Hobbes made a comment about taking and holding Karelia on G1.  I think, on reflection, that following a R1 WR/UKR attack, that Germany can take and hold Karelia regardless of the Russian build, if it abandons Norway.

The conditions for a KJF India IC plan were NOT favorable when I committed.  I led with a West Russia/Ukraine attack with a Russian fighter landing on India and another Russian fighter to Kazakh, with 6 Russian infantry on Buryatia.  Hobbes followed with a 5 infantry 5 tank build on G1 consolidation to Karelia using the German Atlantic sub against UK’s East Canada transport, and hit Anglo-Egypt with at least 1 German tank surviving, landing fighter and bomber on Libya to forestall UK fighter and bomber landing in Africa (after hitting Anglo-Egypt or after attacking the German battleship).  Also I ended up NOT sending the UK bomber to points east in Russia or sending the UK fighter to land in Buryatia.  This gave Japan more freedom on its J1 build, which made a big difference.

Consolidation to Karelia means Russia’s contained early, and having a tank at Anglo-Egypt meant UK’s income would be cut early.  These are both unfavorable conditions to an India IC, even more so when taken together.

If I remember right, I attacked French Indochina with 3 infantry 1 fighter, used the cruiser to hunt the Japanese transport at Kwangtung (if the Jap transport at Kwangtung doesn’t die, it can hit India.)  In retrospect, I probably should have done a small attack into Anglo-Egypt to stop the tank blitz, and I have to take another look at the odds on the French Indochina attack.

The theory behind the India IC is -

Japan has a lot of options, but the India IC, Buryatia Russian 6 infantry stack, and 2 Russian infantry on Sinkiang combine pressure.  I think the strongest counter goes something like -

Japan hits Pearl Harbor with sub, cruiser, fighter, and bomber, moving East Indies battleship and carrier to New Guinea to pick up the fighter from the Hawaiian Islands battle.  Japan hits China with the infantry from Manchuria and 1 infantry from Kwangtung plus air.  The remaining infantry move to French Indochina along with the Caroline Islands carrier and Japan battleship and transport, ending the turn with 5 infantry 1 tank on French Indochina.  Russia ends up able to grab Manchuria, but that can’t be helped.

Japan has 7 infantry 1 tank (2 from East Indies), 5 fighters, and a bomber that can hit India on J2, or 2 battleships 2 carriers 6 fighters and a bomber against an Indian fleet.  These are simultaneous threats.

UK can choose one or the other - sea or land.  If defending at sea, UK has sub, 2 destroyer, 2 carrier, 4 fighter (1 Russian).  If on land, 7 infantry (5 UK 2 Russian) 3-5 fighters (3 UK 2 Russian) plus UK’s 3 units it can build plus Russian tanks.

BUT

IF Japan prepared a fleet to smash a potential UK fleet at India, then Japan’s J2 reinforcement of French Indochina will be weakened.  (Japan can’t move its battleships and AC to hit India and also build enough defensive fleet to easily handle a UK fighter and bomber, unless it skips on some transports - and skipping transports means less reinforcement to French Indochina on J2).

IF Japan did NOT prepare its fleet to smash a potential UK fleet at India, UK just builds a fleet at India.

SO

One way or the other, UK should be able to pull some tricks, and the UK IC should last until at least UK3, which means there should be time for the Allies to pull some shenanigans.  Unspecified shenanigans, but I get the feeling something should be possible with all the small potential pressures that Japan faces.  Japan’s pushing on any of those - Buryatia-Manchuria, or China-Asian coast, or potential UK fleet at India, or the US fleet in the Pacific, means that the Allies can push on the other fronts.

[Hobbes]

I’m starting to get back to the thought that KJF is too dependent on dice results and player mistakes to work, specially on the first round. I’m trying to correlate all of the possible outcomes/moves from round 1 but to me some of them are less than optimal moves, like a USSR1 sub buy or the Indian IC.
Most of those options will benefit Germany one way or the other… which seems to be the whole problem for KJF… its a lot easier to let Russia fall to Japan while taking Germany than having Germany taking Russia while conquering Asia.

[newpaintbrush]

@Hobbes:

I’m starting to get back to the thought that KJF is too dependent on dice results and player mistakes to work, specially on the first round. I’m trying to correlate all of the possible outcomes/moves from round 1 but to me some of them are less than optimal moves, like a USSR1 sub buy or the Indian IC.
Most of those options will benefit Germany one way or the other… which seems to be the whole problem for KJF… its a lot easier to let Russia fall to Japan while taking Germany than having Germany taking Russia while conquering Asia.

I would put a R1 sub buy and a UK1 India IC in different categories, because I am pretty convinced there are enough German options to compensate for a R1 sub buy, but I am not convinced Japan has enough tricks to overcome a UK1 India IC.  It could easily be that Hobbes has done a more complete assessment or has a better intuitive understanding, though.

I haven’t seen strong players use KJF, but I get the feeling there’s a lot of small tricks in there.

For example, in a KGF, the Axis typically want Japan to control Caucasus if possible, because Japan has the numbers to take on the combined Allied defense at Moscow, while Germany’s numbers are depleted by trading with the Allies and maintaining defense.  (That’s small trick #1, controlling Caucasus with Japan).  The Axis can try to force this by pushing Germany to West Russia.  Even if Russia obliterates the Germans, that often depletes them to the point that Japan can capture Caucasus in force, after which ideally the Allies can do nothing about Japan’s holding Caucasus and Japan uses that to crack Moscow.  (That’s small trick #2, using Germany to force the issue to create an opening for Japan).  But maybe the Allies have enough power so they could obliterate West Russia without suffering much losses; that would let them push Japan out of Caucasus later.  But Japan can increase the power of Germany’s position at West Russia by landing Japanese fighters on West Russia (that’s small trick #3, using Jap fighters to reinforce German positions).  Etc. etc. etc.  So many small things that add up to a decent Axis plan.

On the other hand, most Axis players just ram tanks at the Allies and hope something cracks.  Which is the difference between strong and weak play, the lack of small tricks (or small devices or whatever you want to call them) that improve the Axis game.

Since I haven’t used or thought about KJF much or seen strong players use a lot of these “small devices”, I get the feeling that my KJF game is quite undeveloped.  Oh, sure, I know major stuff like using German fighter to stop US destroyer blocks, and not to buy any ICs with Japan (using the IPCs for infantry/fleet/air instead).  But what about the rest of the plan?

For example, UK starts with a transport in Australia.  Supposing UK lost income in Africa, would it be feasible to use a UK fighter and infantry to take control of high IPC islands like Borneo, East Indies, and Phillipines?  Even so, where should the Allies divide territory control between US and UK?  US will want at least one high IPC income island for an island industrial complex to shorten logistic lines to the area, and US can use high income to push more air/navy against Japan.  But UK will want to compensate for lost income in Africa, and needs to maintain a certain income so once Russia falls (if it falls), UK can maintain defense against Germany.  Then there’s the question of coastal industrial complexes for the Allies; if the tide is in Germany’s favor against Russia, coastal industrial complexes are a bad investment for the Allies because with German forces at China, Germany can strike into any one of those ICs.  Once Germany maintains control of a coastal IC, it can provide naval/air support to Japan very quickly.  What is best, and when and why?

I’m sure I won’t be publishing an article any time soon on a UK1 India IC for KJF, but maybe I’ll put up a post with some of the stuff I’ve looked at.

[newpaintbrush]

Earlier I wrote that the German/Russian situation in Karelia/West Russia and the German/UK situation at Anglo-Egypt were important to the decision of whether to build a UK India IC or not.

If the Germans hit West Russia on G1, they’re keeping Russia on its heels economically (conversely, Germany is that much stronger).

Having the Germans consolidate at Karelia on G1 (2 inf from W Eur, 3 from Norway, 2 from Eastern Europe, 3 from Belorussia, 2 tanks from Germany, 1 from Balkans, 1 from Eastern Europe, total 10 infantry 4 tanks) threatens about the same thing, specifically German attack on West Russia on G2 (the Karelia units plus 2 tanks from Eastern Europe that started in Western Europe on G1 - the Southern Europe tank often used against R1 control of Ukraine), plus 4-6 odd German fighters plus German bomber.

UK fighters on West Russia is important in the second case, and quick UK support via transport is important in the first case, so Germany can’t hold Karelia and cripple Russia’s economy.

The German situation in Anglo-Egypt is similar.  If UK allows Germany to hold Anglo-Egypt on G1, on G2 Germany can blitz a tank through Africa for 2 more IPC per turn and 2 less to UK a turn.  This is unlikely to be countered by the Allies, as the US1 cruiser/2 transports are probably dead if they dropped to Algeria on US1, or even if they headed south to Brazil, because of the German subs that should be in the Atlantic.  Particularly in a KJF situation, the Allies will probably not drop to Africa (US will be busy with Pacific, and UK will either be dropping to Europe or supporting its India IC, plus which UK dropping to the south of Africa requires two moves via transport, then there’s two moves back before the UK transports can threaten anything like Western Europe again, which slows the Allies a lot.

Plus there’s the fact that another UK fighter is on Anglo-Egypt.  If the UK fighter dies, UK has 3 fighters and Russia 2, which makes for a maximum of 2 carriers 2 destroyers 4 fighters 1 sub at India on UK2.  (Or 1 destroyer 1 battleship instead of 2 destroyers).  UK could go all in on carriers, and do 3 carriers 1 destroyer 5 fighters 1 sub instead - much more expensive, but possibly not that worthwhile.  But with a 4th UK fighter, it’s possible to bring the fleet to 3 carriers 1 destroyer 6 fighters 1 sub instead.  That sixth fighter makes the fleet much much scarier and interesting.

[newpaintbrush]

That is, if the Germans hit West Russia or fortify Karelia on G1, or if UK does not plan to retake a German-held Anglo-Egypt on UK1, a India IC is probably not best.

[jiman79]

If G stacks Karelia with units from Norway, they either did not hit SZ2 or lost the fig+bomber. Otherwise they would need some protection.
Anyways this would invite to a KGF IMO, either to exploit that G is unable to hit an allied atlantic fleet, or simply to assist USSR asap (since as Bunnies stated they are on their heels).