Ok the reason KJF doesn’t work in revised is the amount of money US has vs Japans money. Sure after your first buy with US you are going to have 2 carriers 4 fighters a battleship 3 transports (2 from europe) and 2 DD’s (one also from europe), but Japans fleet is going to consit of 2 carriers 6 fighters 2 battleships 4 transports and possibly a destroyer. Japan makes 33 on his first turn. On his second turn as Japan I’d just buy 5 subs and an inf with Japan if I saw a KJF. US buys his 5 subs destroyer. Now US has a lead in ships, but you have to remember that US is still two turns away from the money islands, while Japan is just 1 for the most part. As long as Japan stalls US for 5 rounds before US takes East Indies (and can hold it and build a factory the next turn). Then the axis are golden. Russia will be dead by the time the East Indies factory first starts pumping out units, and you can’t just stop putting ships into pacific as US. Japan still should have a huge Navy at this point since she was spending her 40 dollar IPC’s on all ships. That is the problem. You can’t just do as you say and switch to landing in europe. No way africa hasn’t been overrun by germany, and no way Moscow isn’t taken. I’d love to play against you as the axis with a 9 bid and show you what I mean.
Re. KJF/KGF in 1940. Thanks to the victory conditions, it’s moot :-D Every game is ‘realistic’. Eventually, playing this way will get tiresome and we’ll want to play some other way….but for now it’s great!
Re. KJF in Revised it’s nowhere near as easy as Comm Jen paints. But it’s far from impossible. The current experts in Revised KJF play over at Game Table Online in the Revised Champion’s League. For info on KJF read anything by bmaster (eumais in these forums) and see my KJF Basics article. I’m not an expert in KJF; but I have good experience against KJF as Axis so I have ideas on what works and what doesn’t. KJF is a dice strategy and perhaps not viable in low luck.
Imho KJF is about as viable in aa50:41 as it is in revised…possibly even more so. Ie risky but doable (provided you have sufficient skill) in dice games. In aa50:42, Japan is easier to defeat, but KJF is probably less viable because Germany is such a beast.
Re. KJF in Revised it’s nowhere near as easy as Comm Jen paints. Â But it’s far from impossible. Â The current experts in Revised KJF play over at Game Table Online in the Revised Champion’s League. Â For info on KJF read anything by bmaster (eumais in these forums) and see my KJF Basics article. Â I’m not an expert in KJF; but I have good experience against KJF as Axis so I have ideas on what works and what doesn’t. Â KJF is a dice strategy and perhaps not viable in low luck.
I am an expert in KJF. Personally, it is easier for me to neuter Japan than it is to take Berlin. This is a PERSONAL opinion and I am not trying to force it down anyone else’s throat for two reasons: (1) I may be wrong. (2) I don’t know your experience level or how you play the game.
That said, you need zero transports for KJF. Not a single one. As I said, KJF has nothing to do with taking Tokyo. If you can, great, but it’s not a part of the strategy. The strategy, in the largeset possible terms is thus:
A) Prevent Japan from being able to sink the Allied fleet.
B) Be able to sink the Japanese fleet.
C) Move the Japanese fleet out of position, or sink the Japanese fleet. (remember, a fleet that has moved to the Med or is in the Indian ocean is useless to the Axis. Well, virtually so.)
D. Prevent the Japanese from being able to build or reinforce their fleet (if their fleet is out of position, this is virtually assured anyway.)
E) Invade Asia Minor and Asia Proper and start sending in reinforcements to Russia via the far east/China.
You should take distinct notice of the lack of any mention of invading Japan itself. Screw them. You don’t have to take the island, you don’t have to bomb the island, you literally need to do nothing too them. Once you own the Japanese Sea you can leave a carrier or two or whatever you need for shuttling troops from Alaska into SFE without risk. Park the fleet where the US Marines are located now, and Japan is done. They get a turn, they guy to build, they may even have a few combat rounds left, but they are through as a power on the game board.
This was the ONE major aspect that got a certain someone pissed off. He thought I had to take Tokyo, and I never did, instead I crippled Japan and sent massive amount of arms and armor through Russia via the back door. He got Moscow, until America liberated and Russia reinforced again.
Essentially, that is how it is in Revised/Classic. Anniversary is a different animal altogther. Personally, I dont like Anniversary because it is unrealistic in the Pacific. (My opinion.) I like G40 since I can go back to my Japanese strategy - not as much as Revised/Classic, and thus it is more realistic to the real war, but still I can do some.
Lastly, let me point out, THIS IS A GAME, if you want realistic, then you have to forbid the axis to win no matter what.
Thanks for not trying to force it down any ones throat.
@Cmdr:
Re. KJF in Revised it’s nowhere near as easy as Comm Jen paints. � But it’s far from impossible. � The current experts in Revised KJF play over at Game Table Online in the Revised Champion’s League. � For info on KJF read anything by bmaster (eumais in these forums) and see my KJF Basics article. � I’m not an expert in KJF; but I have good experience against KJF as Axis so I have ideas on what works and what doesn’t. � KJF is a dice strategy and perhaps not viable in low luck.
I am an expert in KJF. Personally, it is easier for me to neuter Japan than it is to take Berlin. This is a PERSONAL opinion and I am not trying to force it down anyone else’s throat for two reasons: (1) I may be wrong. (2) I don’t know your experience level or how you play the game.
That said, you need zero transports for KJF. Not a single one. As I said, KJF has nothing to do with taking Tokyo. If you can, great, but it’s not a part of the strategy. The strategy, in the largeset possible terms is thus:
A) Prevent Japan from being able to sink the Allied fleet.Â
B) Be able to sink the Japanese fleet.
C) Move the Japanese fleet out of position, or sink the Japanese fleet. (remember, a fleet that has moved to the Med or is in the Indian ocean is useless to the Axis. Well, virtually so.)
D. Prevent the Japanese from being able to build or reinforce their fleet (if their fleet is out of position, this is virtually assured anyway.)
E) Invade Asia Minor and Asia Proper and start sending in reinforcements to Russia via the far east/China.You should take distinct notice of the lack of any mention of invading Japan itself. Screw them. You don’t have to take the island, you don’t have to bomb the island, you literally need to do nothing too them. Once you own the Japanese Sea you can leave a carrier or two or whatever you need for shuttling troops from Alaska into SFE without risk. Park the fleet where the US Marines are located now, and Japan is done. They get a turn, they guy to build, they may even have a few combat rounds left, but they are through as a power on the game board.
This was the ONE major aspect that got a certain someone pissed off. He thought I had to take Tokyo, and I never did, instead I crippled Japan and sent massive amount of arms and armor through Russia via the back door. He got Moscow, until America liberated and Russia reinforced again.Â
Essentially, that is how it is in Revised/Classic. Anniversary is a different animal altogther. Personally, I dont like Anniversary because it is unrealistic in the Pacific. (My opinion.) I like G40 since I can go back to my Japanese strategy - not as much as Revised/Classic, and thus it is more realistic to the real war, but still I can do some.Â
Lastly, let me point out, THIS IS A GAME, if you want realistic, then you have to forbid the axis to win no matter what.
Not trying to be mean, but it is obvious that a KJF doesn’t take Japan itself. You take the money islands and build factories there from which you offload troops onto the mainland. This will essentially cripple Japan into making 8 dollars a turn. Then you just worry about Germany, but what I am saying is that Russia will be long dead and Germany all over Asia by the time you are able to do all of these things VS an expert player.
you can’t make factos on islands… but I see your point.
You can in revised and classic, Cow.
Yes, you cripple Japan which can be done long before Germany breaks out again using the proper Russian and British open. Especially in Revised. It’s why I usually let my opponent have a 24 IPC or larger bid with the Axis, since I know without it, Germany is crippled round 1 and disabled until round 5 before Russia is back on the defensive on home soil, and by then, England has reestablished naval supremecy so they can start landing a troop and firing 6 or 7 shore bombardments doing 4:1 dmg using Cruisers and Battleships. (In classic it was common, at the end of the game, to have 8-12 british battleships so you could amphibious 1 infantry and get 9-13 shots.)
I prefer Revised to Anniversary, I even prefer it slightly to Global 1940 with LHTR 2.0 rules (so Germany cant get LRA round 1 and use it round 1 to take England, which was a huge tactic before LHTR moved the implementation of technology to effect the round after discovery.)
In that case, Japan may be left with an American fleet in home waters (Japan’s home waters) and only losing Java/Sumatra/Phillippines/Celebes and leaving Japan all other islands they start with.
But yea, DM, myself and a few others came up with a really strong Russia open that essentially tears up the Russo-German front, killing 33% of the Luftwaffe and taking 25% of Germany’s starting territories. Cost Russia a lot, but they then had plenty of time to push infantry out to slow the Germans until England could dump troops and/or planes in to help.
jen, what kind of bidding rule are you using for 24?
if you can place all the units in one terr, surely 12 would suffice?
then germany can place 4 inf in libya, or 2 in libya 2 in ukraine (to protect the ftr)
To stick more with the original topic, what do people think of this plan:
Russia buys a Naval Base for Soviet Far East just before they suspect that the USA will be able to enter the war. Then when at war, the USA simply starts shucking troops directly from San Francisco to Siberia, with the US fleet parked off Siberia to threaten SZ6. Or, make things more economical by skipping the Naval Base and having the USA shuck troops between SZ2 & 3, with the trade-off being that the USA is investing more heavily in Tanks and Mech Inf so that reinforcements can get to Alaska in 1 turn. Of course, you may want to go the Tank/MInf route anyway to speed up travel times in Asia. The Russian troops can either stay and help out or rush back to Moscow.
jen, what kind of bidding rule are you using for 24?
if you can place all the units in one terr, surely 12 would suffice?
then germany can place 4 inf in libya, or 2 in libya 2 in ukraine (to protect the ftr)
all place at once. You need a MINIMUM of 12 IPC just to save Japan by putting units in Europe, then you need the normal bid to balance the game for the Axis.
The Russian open has an 80% chance of success, even if it fails you have nearly 95% odds of doing serious damage to the German war effort and if that fails, well, depending on how bad, (3% odds?) you may want to throw the towel in. It’s not really an all or nothing thing, but a disasterous showing there would be akin to Germany failling horribly at Sea Lion in 1940. Germany might survive, but it’s not good - likewise the Russians might survive, but it’s not good.
I like the shuttle idea in Siberia, but Japan should own those territories before America comes into the war.
@Cmdr:
I like the shuttle idea in Siberia, but Japan should own those territories before America comes into the war.
I’m not sure that matters so much. If the Allies are willing to commit to this scheme a priori, then Russia can plop down the Naval Base right away in R1 before they can be stopped. If it falls into Japanese hands J1 or later, America will likely just take it back the first turn they enter the war. If Japan sinks enough resources into the area to stop the US from landing ashore, they’ve already played into the Allies’ hands by diverting their troops into an area that won’t win them the game and/or are exposing their fleet to a US attack. Plus the Japanese are unlikely to be able to discourage a drop into both SZ4 & 3 at the same time. Even without the Naval Base, if Japan is sending all they have to stop the SZ2 - 3 shuck, so much the better.
@Cmdr:
I like the shuttle idea in Siberia, but Japan should own those territories before America comes into the war.
I’m not sure that matters so much. If the Allies are willing to commit to this scheme a priori, then Russia can plop down the Naval Base right away in R1 before they can be stopped. If it falls into Japanese hands J1 or later, America will likely just take it back the first turn they enter the war. If Japan sinks enough resources into the area to stop the US from landing ashore, they’ve already played into the Allies’ hands by diverting their troops into an area that won’t win them the game and/or are exposing their fleet to a US attack. Plus the Japanese are unlikely to be able to discourage a drop into both SZ4 & 3 at the same time. Even without the Naval Base, if Japan is sending all they have to stop the SZ2 - 3 shuck, so much the better.Â
These are all good points. The more time Japan spends up there, the less it seems they are trying to win on the Pac map.
Hmm, yes, but they have the home field advantage. They can shuttle troops via the northern route via a complex in Korea - I have done it before. 6 Mech, 4 arm a round and shove them down Russia’s throat. Supplement with what you need bridged from Japan into Korea and up and you could have a major problem.
On the other hand, Russia has now blown 15 IPC on a naval base round 1, instead of units to hold back Germany. -5 Infantry compounded by 3 or 4 rounds to move them into position and further compounded by less layering between a German assault and Russian armored units.
What I like about this strat is that it allows USA to attack Japan and help russia at the same time without a major split between maps. It’s almost a having the cake and eating it too situation. Japan isn’t doing much in the pac other than fight in siberia which might be ok, but this time the US is there and it isn’t really stealing anything from Russia. As someone said, you don’t really need the naval base to do it.
Isn’t Japan in the south sucking up all the money island while you are shucking?
Isn’t Japan in the south sucking up all the money island while you are shucking?
The way the strat was described to me it sounded like Japan had its hands full in the north with the full brunt of the US income every turn. ANZAC doesn’t have much, but it can do a little to challege Japan down there if most of Japan’s resources are committed to the mainland.
Honestly I think Japan would just ignore the northern US forces. Get the southern money islands and eventually take India, but keep his navy very large.
Isn’t Japan in the south sucking up all the money island while you are shucking?
Honestly I think Japan would just ignore the northern US forces. Get the southern money islands and eventually take India, but keep his navy very large.
I’ll admit up front this is only a half-baked plan and how it plays out relies heavily on what Japan does- which is not ideal since a perfect strategy can be executed with little to no regard for your opponent’s moves. If I was a Japanese player faced with this, I would most likely do what theROCmonster says- ignore the US for as long as possible because the key to Japanese power lies in the south. The goal of the strategy is to compel Japan to come north when it is clearly against Japan’s long-term interests.
The war plans I’ve read for Japan call for heavy action in the south on J1 or J2 at the latest. In this case the US has immediate entry into the war and the arrival in Siberia will be unopposed and SZ6 is near-empty. The short-term goal is for the US to take Korea. The Japanese have enough starting forces in Manchuria/Korea that they can ignore a US presence for some time- but leaving those men there helps China. It is a choice of leaving your starting forces stuck there in Korea or leaving enough of your navy behind in SZ6 to prevent the US going directly after Korea by sea. If Japan blocks SZ6, then the US troops start to walk south while more troops are landed in Siberia while the USN continues to increase, forcing Japan to match it. Anything Japan does to cover Korea and/or SZ6 is going to take pressure off the south. Is it enough to matter? I can’t say since I haven’t tried this in a game. But so far this is just the situation where Japan has decided to hold and doesn’t go on the offensive in the north. A bold Russian player can also stack the Infantry behind Amur R1 and send the Russian Air Force east to attack Manchuria or Korea R3, with the Air Force back in Moscow to defend on R5 if the German attack can be held off until G6 (if you also choose to just abandon Moscow as some suggest, then these planes weren’t needed in the west anyway). The Russian player could also do the Amur stack on R1 to goad the Japanese to sending their forces north to crush it.
The other likely scenario is Japan never hits the Allies until J4. In this situation Russia may or may not have lost a lot of Siberian territory, which can be easily reclaimed by the US player unless the Japanese went so heavy up there that you have to question what is going on in the south. A Russia-killing major IC in Korea won’t be able to even place a full load of 10x troops until J3 (due to the fact that Japan starts 1 IPC (sorry, Production Unit (why the name change?)) shy of being able to place a major on J1). If these troops are trapped there in Siberia because they are countering a growing stack of US forces, then the plan has already worked. Japan could have also skipped the factory and just left a SZ6 navy to shuck troops directly from Japan to the mainland, but this also plays into the Allies’ goals since it is a commitment in the economically inferior and VC-absent north. A US player expecting late entry into the war could try some other interesting things, like a minor IC in Mexico US1 to get more pre-war spending into the Pacific (this might still be useful in any event if you go 100% KJF). You can also take the starting fleets in Hawaii and/or San Francisco and park them right off Siberia even before you are at war, since it is a valid move until Japan seizes those territories. Another option might be to go heavy air in the first few rounds so that you have something to fly over to seriously defend the Russian Infantry stack as soon as war begins.
What are the other KJF options? You can follow the previous suggestions and have the USA build 100% warships, leaving India and ANZAC to take the islands, but this leaves you shucking ships from San Fran -> Hawaii -> Carolines -> Phillipines -> Malaya (this route maximizes the threat to SZ6). This is basically just as long as sending MInf down from Siberia to Korea and it wouldn’t stop Japan from crushing India J3 anyway if they still go for it. The other downside is that once the naval battles are won, you can’t really re-purpose those ships for anything else and you’re still several turns away from getting them to the Mediterranean.
tell me again how this work when germany build 8 art on round 1, 18 mechs on round 2, round 3 he stacks east poland with 30 mechs, 10 pz 15 inf (didn’t bother to count it out) and builds 10 mechs and a ftr. round 4 he moves these now 70 units ish units to west ukraine, round 5 he moves them to belo, and round 6 he attacks moscow with 70 landunits + 15-20 planes. (he probably has more landunits by then, I bet cow can tell me exactly what he has.
anyways, when you build so few units, you will be screwed, he only need to take moscow, and his stack is stacked as one force, there are exacaxtly 0 of these small counterattacks
Obviously if Germany makesthat build then you don’t put all that cash into the things I said. But my group generally prefers to go down the Major IC in Romania or HUngary route and I’ve found that building only infantry or infantry and artillery throws the initiative over to the Germans and you are basically indicating that you’re not going to try and win with Russia.
Sure, if the Germans build like you indicated above then they’re playing competitively (as opposed to playing for a laugh) and you have to respond to reflect their intentions…
I’ve never understood that term “playing for a laugh”. Doesn’t everyone want to win? So why not always play competetively?
